Approval Voting
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Since we're thinking about elections.</div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting</a>
This system of voting:
- allows third parties to receive wider support.
- promotes consensus candidates.
- would reduce negative campaigning.
- prevents the vote from being "split" between similar candidates.
- ensures that the candidate who wins is supported by more people than any other candidate.
The system is very simple. Instead of voting for a single candidate, you vote for as many candidates as you would like. The candidate with the most votes wins.
Write your state representatives. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
This system of voting:
- allows third parties to receive wider support.
- promotes consensus candidates.
- would reduce negative campaigning.
- prevents the vote from being "split" between similar candidates.
- ensures that the candidate who wins is supported by more people than any other candidate.
The system is very simple. Instead of voting for a single candidate, you vote for as many candidates as you would like. The candidate with the most votes wins.
Write your state representatives. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Comments
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method" target="_blank">Condorcet voting</a> is the only way forward.
Read up on the voting paradox ( aka condorcet's paradox ), and the condorcet election criteria too.
In recent history, condorcet voting would have nullified the argument that a libertarian or green vote was a vote for bush. I'm not saying gore would have been elected.
In Ireland we have "first past the post proportional representation", which is a first step towards condorcet voting that make a compromise for an easier balloting procedure. Our system is very similiar to the approval voting system you link here. We rank candidates in order of preference. When a candidate is eliminated, all the first preference votes for that candidate are redistributed to the each voter's second preference and so on until only two candidates remain. This is a good system, and has helped a multi-party politicial landscape to survive, producing coalition governments with compromise ideals. It also works with elections that produce multiple winners.
If America really wants a healthy democracy ( there are more then two choices on issues ) they need to embrace some form of proportional election method.
The two large parties are going to see it as "we only stand to lose influence by this, though," so which of them is going to implement it?
The problem with the current election system is that those who can change it are those who benefit from it. There's just no incentive.
What is needed is a third party that campaigns on the promise to change the election system to a more fair one. That's the easiest part. The hard part is getting the voters to give them that power. The voters are locked into the bipartisan mindset. It'll probably take generations to get them out of it.
Yeah, I agree lolfighter. Before a party can make this change, there has to be a mandate from the public for it, and my understanding is that America is happy with a two party system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so much "happy" as "Not ###### off enough by it."
Yeah, I agree lolfighter. Before a party can make this change, there has to be a mandate from the public for it, and my understanding is that America is happy with a two party system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My understanding is that...the two parties are happy with a two party system. (No great surprise there.) And even if there is good support from the general populace, its hard to get anything done if BOTH major parties are opposed to it.
If anyone is interested, I recommend doing some google action around <a href="http://www.debates.org/" target="_blank">The Commission on Presidential Debates.</a> This group was formed in 1987 by former party leaders from both Democrats and Republicans in an effort to <strike>prevent other parties from getting involved</strike> provide a satisfactory and educational debate schedule.
Excepting that lends itself towards fraud decently. As votes that now include more than one candidate could be the person's actual vote, or a tampered vote.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. There are a couple of ways to fix it. The easiest is to have yes/no boxes next to each candidate so that its clear the voter made a choice for each one and it hasn't been changed. Another option would be to fill in a box with the number of people you voted for in that race.
<!--quoteo(post=1575090:date=Nov 9 2006, 05:55 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 9 2006, 05:55 AM) [snapback]1575090[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
In theory, if electronic voting can be designed to be tamper proof using Open Source software that is available for public review that provides a paper trail of every record made and every calculation performed, then I think
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method" target="_blank">Condorcet voting</a> is the only way forward.
Read up on the voting paradox ( aka condorcet's paradox ), and the condorcet election criteria too.
In recent history, condorcet voting would have nullified the argument that a libertarian or green vote was a vote for bush. I'm not saying gore would have been elected.
In Ireland we have "first past the post proportional representation", which is a first step towards condorcet voting that make a compromise for an easier balloting procedure. Our system is very similiar to the approval voting system you link here. We rank candidates in order of preference. When a candidate is eliminated, all the first preference votes for that candidate are redistributed to the each voter's second preference and so on until only two candidates remain. This is a good system, and has helped a multi-party politicial landscape to survive, producing coalition governments with compromise ideals. It also works with elections that produce multiple winners.
If America really wants a healthy democracy ( there are more then two choices on issues ) they need to embrace some form of proportional election method.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm familiar with Condorcet Voting. I think I like approval voting better for a few reasons.
- Condorcet Voting isn't guaranteed to produce a single winner. ( I know its rare, but still <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
- Approval voting is much simpler to fill out on a ballot, particularly when someone either isn't familiar with all of the candidates or doesn't know their complete set of preferences. At the end of the day, you either approve of a candidate or you don't, and approval voting lets you express that.
- I think it is easier to understand how approval voting is counted.
- Approval voting makes it clear exactly what percentage of the population supports a candidate.
- Approval voting tends to pick consensus candidates rather than the Condorcet winner in practice, which I think is a better result. Imagine in a presidential election if there were 3 candidates, two polar opposites, and one centrist who is everyone's second choice. Condorcet voting would pick one of the two polarizing candidates, approval voting would likely pick the moderate candidate.
I agree, the voting system in America is crappy, and needs to be updated to some better system that lets third party candidates have a chance. And also, campaigns need to be publicly financed. ###### lobbyists.
Campaign Finance Reform should focus on disclosure, not on simply stopping people from supporting their candidates.
I hate the two party system. Why should there be parties at all? I see no reason for it, all it does is let idiots vote without thinking because they know "I'm a democrat/republican."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, I agree.
Except then idiots would just vote on which name they like better.
Hmm.. Jesus Jenkins or Wendy Bendy? I'd say definitely Jenkins is the better candidate.