Post #31,178
3/7/02 10:13:44 AM
|
Will people understand how it works?
I had to think about it for a second to get how it works, but came to the conclusion it really does. If people had trouble voting for the one candidate they wanted, how much harder will this be to explain?
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #31,181
3/7/02 10:31:47 AM
|
Were's our Oz contingent?
Isn't this election method used in Australia? Maybe we could get a description on how confusing it is/isn't in actual use.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #31,560
3/10/02 9:25:25 PM
|
Sorry, don't normally pay that much attention to this forum.
Yes, we use that system for our local electorates, but it's not called IRV here. Actually, we use slight variation: you number the candidates in order of most preferred to least preferred. Other than that, it is as has been described. In practice, many people either follow their party's "how-to-vote" card, or start with who they like least and work towards "1" that way. Have a rummage on [link|http://www.aec.gov.au/|The Australian Electoral Commision], in particular [link|http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/factfiles/factsheet6.htm|this page] (upper house voting uses a different method). We get information every election about how it works and how your vote gets counted, etc.
I don't know now it would change US politics; there is an additional factor that attending a voting booth is legally compulsary in Australia.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #31,182
3/7/02 10:44:24 AM
|
It is really quite simple
Your first vote is for the guy you want. The second for the guy with a realistic chance that you will settle for.
Most people can understand that.
What is not so obvious is that widespread acceptance of this is instant death for a 2-party system. Why? Because convincing everyone that the other guy sucks may get you the fallback vote, but it won't earn the more valuable first vote. The result is that third and fourth parties have a realistic chance at getting primary votes, and when they are seen getting a significant number of the votes, they start becoming viable as political forces.
As boxley said, they are at first protest votes. But unlike in a winner takes all system, those protest votes actually lead to a meaningful shift in political realities.
And once that happens, your political system becomes much more interesting. Right now we have 2 parties that try to position themselves as close to being the same as possible. (The idea being that people "on your side" won't vote for the other guy, and you pick up people in the middle.) In fact in the last 50 years they got too close together and largely switched constituencies! A choice between two candidates, largely alike, is not much of a choice. A plurality of candidates, each trying to actively represent their own viewpoint, is much, much better.
Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
|
Post #31,529
3/10/02 12:07:31 PM
|
Death of the two-party system
Yeah, it's probably time. Unfortunately.
What we did in the past was much more complex. As Ben points out, the two parties tended to be driven toward the center -- that is, the system itself tended to move toward consensus. The system used in other countries, with multiple political parties and coalition politics, still existed here, but within the two mainstream parties rather than at the top level. There are still remnants of that, mainly visible among the Republicans because their extreme wing (the Religious Right) is much more visible for several reasons than the extreme wings of the Democrats.
I say "unfortunately" because unlike parliamentary democracies we have a very strong chief executive. Our President is essentially a King with term limits; the only real check on Presidential power is the fact that he has to leave after eight years. Having the President as the visible chief of some whacko coalition is going to be very dangerous, folks.
The ultimate result is gonna be Italy -- more or less total inability to elect a Government. If you want to put this system into place, please start thinking about what happens when we can't put a coalition together to select a President, and the whole system is run by unelected bureaucrats for extended periods of time.
As for the mechanics and getting people to understand it, might it not be easier to assign points? Instead of making people make two different choices (first and second), tell them to assign +1 to the ones they really like, zero to the ones they can stand but don't really care for, and -1 to the ones they hate. The labels might be "Like", "Don't Care", "Hate", but the counting system would function on the numbers. Highest score wins.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #31,534
3/10/02 2:07:01 PM
|
Potentially a problem
Electing a total nut case is a serious protential problem. In particular, the US president has too much power to use US troops outside the US without congresional approval.
However, I can also see some offsetting factors. The most important being that, unlike most parlamentary systems, there is no connection between the president's party and congressional party lines. It is very likely that a radical president (from either end of the spectrum) would find himself without the power to push the things he want through congress.
Keep in mind also, that with this system you can't get into an Italy style n-way deadlock. Somebody will win the election, they may end up winning with only a fraction of the votes but somebody will win.
I can see at least one other potential problem with this kind of system. First, listing a primary and secondary choice will work well initially, but there could be problems down the road. The system starts to get a little strange when there are more then 4 or 5 viable canidates. Eventually it might be necissary to move to a system where you pick your top 3 or top 4.
In some ways, it would be ideal to have people rank every canidate. But that runs into problem itself, if there are more then half a dozen entries, it is very likely that there are some I don't even know anything about.
In any case, if we did role this out nation wide, there would be 3 or 4 election cycle while people got used to the new system.
I would expect that in the first election or two the only result would be getting to see what percentage of the population really wanted to vote for Nader and the other third party canidates. However, seeing honest numbers here would give the third parties a major boost.
I also expect that the first third party canidate to get elected to president is liable to get it in the shorts. The two major parties would work together to see that the president didn't achive anything of importance. This will probably do more damage to them then to the president, but congresscritters can be amazingly vindictive and short sighted.
I thought of one advantage of having more then two viable parties that hasn't been mentioned here yet either. With every extra viable canidate added, it becomes that much harder for companies to just buy them all off.
Jay
|
Post #31,537
3/10/02 2:30:11 PM
|
Military power outside borders?
Actually, that is strictly speaking the only legal use of our armed forces, and Congress supposedly does have the power (if it should choose to exercise it) to cut off funding after thirty or sixty days (I forget which.)
Unfortunately, the U.S. congress has become too accustomed to passing blanket authorizations (such as the war on terror) while weaseling out of actual declarations of war. That was a problem in Vietnam, where after a decade Congress put their its foot down and passed a bill disallowing the use of the military in Southeast Asia. That went from one unwise extreme (Johnson and Nixen waging an undeclared war) to the other (making it impossible to even try to support our South Vietnam allies - not that Nixon would have been able to get anything through Congress in the last year or two of his presidency.)
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
|
Post #31,551
3/10/02 7:08:28 PM
|
POTENTIAL problem?
Erm. Did you take a look at the lot we elected this time around?
Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
|
Post #31,558
3/10/02 7:49:00 PM
|
The Robot or the Dummy?
Guess which one we elected? I didn't vote for either of them, I voted for Nader, but somehow Bush got my vote? WTF?
Hey Box, quote me on this willya? "What this country needs is more Professional Wrestlers to enter the political arena!" Take a look at Jessie "The Mind" Ventura, we need more like him, who will be next? "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan? Jake "The Snake" Roberts? George "The Animal" Steele? "Macho Man" Randy Savage? Politicians apparently not only need to be a wrestler, but also have to have some sort of nickname? ;)
"Will work for fair salary and benefits, seeking company with integrity."
|
Post #31,557
3/10/02 7:46:28 PM
|
Bring back the Whigs!
Now there was a political party! Character assasination, etc. Too bad it disbanded?
Put H. Ross perot in charge of it now that he lost control of the Reform Party and needs something to do these days. :)
"Will work for fair salary and benefits, seeking company with integrity."
|
Post #31,553
3/10/02 7:18:25 PM
|
180 from Jackson.
Isn't it interesting that we now discuss "elimination of powerful political parties" in order to achieve the goal of a democratically elected president when in 1838 (or thereabouts), Jackson and others pushed forward powerful political parties in order to make it possible for a democratically elected president to take office?
What can be said about this experiment with political parties in a capitalist state? For a time, they are useful in ensuring a democratic process but ultimately fail? Should we have political parties at all?
For me, I think far less of the world is ruled by politicks than is ruled by board members of multi-national corporations. And if one accepts that, does it truly matter who "represents us" in government? Imo, governments the world over are becoming more and more like our own: incapable of governing in a manner inconsistent with multi-national corporate interests. The saddest thing for me is that most of my fellow Muricans don't seem to care.
|
Post #31,556
3/10/02 7:45:26 PM
|
May have been the right solution for the time
One of the fundamental problems with the two party system we have today is that the two parties have become vested interests themselves. This is a result of them existing as groups for so long.
And like any system for allocating power that has existed for any length of time, there are those that have figured out how to exploit the system. As more and more people learn to exploit the system it becomes less responsive to real problems and more stagnate.
In the end it becomes necissary to change the system every so often. Not because the new system is inherently better or the old system is bad, but simply to remove all the leeches that have attached themselves to the old system.
Jay
|
Post #31,590
3/11/02 9:00:34 AM
|
Money == Power
And corporations have the money.
Which isn't to say that a political system couldn't be set up that limited the influence of money.
Just that we haven't constructed one yet.
Something about the people who are governed by those rules also write those rules.
|
Post #31,597
3/11/02 9:41:14 AM
|
Why no such system will ever be devised here.
>> Which isn't to say that a political system couldn't be set up that limited
>> the influence of money.
Because Money == Power, the only way to set up such a political system that I am familiar with is through violent revolution. But, getting people to support a violent overthrow of their government requires at least one thing: hunger.
As the world's breadbasket, the US will never have enough of its people truly hungry enough to support a violent overthrow. Hence, those that possess the money/power will forever remain those who possess the money/power. Consequently, who they select to represent us is really of no serious consequence whatsoever.
|
Post #31,619
3/11/02 11:23:01 AM
|
Cynical you are, Grasshopper.
Consequently, who they select to represent us is really of no serious consequence whatsoever. Since the government seems to be little more than a means to redistribute wealth now, all that changes from administration to administration is hwo is robbed and who is gifted. I recall something someone said about the discovery that you can vote yourself funds from the public coffer and how this will doom any democracy (I think that was the phrasing). All that remains is to determine what form our government will take while still claiming to be a "democratic republic".
|
Post #31,634
3/11/02 12:14:21 PM
|
Even less than that.
>> ... all that changes from administration to administration is hwo is robbed and who
>> is gifted.
I'll grant that so-called "progressives" (aka Democrats) are slightly less forthright about funneling money up the food chain. However, to say that any of the recent crop is actually interested in forcing a more fair distribution of wealth than the capitalist economy accomplishes is reaching very far indeed.
The most recent "progressive" (Clinton) only stopped the bleeding of the bottom 80%. In real terms, their wealth just stopped diminishing. For instance, during the Reagan-Bush "greed is not enough" period, the top 1% went from holding roughly 7% of all private wealth to holding more than 12%. The "progressive" President Clinton didn't do anything about that massive shift upwards, but he did manage to stop the bleeding. The distribution of private wealth remained almost constant under his direction. Does that mean he "redistributed" wealth? I think not.
Interesting and very simple to see why the economy boomed during this period. It was aided significantly by the fact that, at least for 8 years, Joe and Molly sixpack saw that they weren't losing ground. This was enough to boost their confidence (which is a necessary feature for our economy to thrive) and they went shopping, fueling demand, etc., etc. It amazes me that "supply-siders" still don't get it. You used to have to give Joe and Molly some money to spend (i.e. redistribute wealth); now it appears that all you have to do is stop stealing from them (supply-side economics) and they'll respond.
My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge.
|
Post #31,644
3/11/02 12:56:13 PM
|
In a static system, I'd agree with you.
My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge. If the system were static, then maintaining the staus quo would be adequate (far better than dropping behind). But we go through cycles of different administrations. Maintaining for 8 years and then losing for 8 years still results in a net lose. Not to mention that this pattern doesn't have much flexibility to handle unexpected emergencies. Such as our current recession (on a national scale) or extended unemployment (on a personal scale). To really maintain the status quo, Joe and Molly would have to go through periods of real gain to counter the periods of real loss. This would, hopefully, level out some of the more drastic economic swings (savings to fall back on in this recession).
|
Post #31,647
3/11/02 1:07:54 PM
|
Yes.
Everything you said in your last post is why I stated initially that "it doesn't make much difference". ;-)
|
