How should voting work?

[Valkenar]

Here is a site I found a while ago, forgot, and have now found again. http://www.electionmethods.org/ They detail some interesting information and ideas about voting? It's worth a look, despite the blindingly awful color scheme.

Ignoring any problems that may exist with the general election and campaigning system, how do you folks feel about our voting system itself? Is it perfect as is, or are there some better options? Some people like instant runoff, the site I listed endorses something called Condorcet. What do you think?

[Panther]

"The determination of pairwise matrices is very basic and should be understandable with moderate effort by eighth-graders. The resolution of cyclical ambiguities is slightly more complicated, but it should be understandable with very moderate effort by average high school juniors. If that level of intellectual effort is now too much to ask for something as fundamental as a superior election method, democracy is in trouble."

(my emphasis)

Oops... too bad... the government indoctrination system (otherwise known as public schools) has negated this idea already.

More later after others give their opinions...

[chewy]

Great post Valkenar! I've had this discussion many times with friends and family and I've always believe a rank/rate system would work far better than what we have now.

The major problem with our current political system, IMHO, is that lack of 3rd (or 4th, etc.) party inclusion. The author of that article addressed this issue better than I could have, so I'll leave it to others to read. To summarize, though, the rank/rate voting system(called "condorcet" voting by the author) would kill two birds with one stone. First, 3rd party candidates would get more votes, increasing the chances of finding some "middle-ground" candidate between Dems and Reps. Second, Dems and Reps could no longer complain about 3rd party candidates "stealing" their votes; at least not as strongly as they used to (i.e., presumably most Nader supporters this election year would rank their candidates as: Kerry-Nader-Bush or Nader-Kerry-Bush).

As an aside I've never bought into the "stealing" of votes argument, but I am sick of hearing the Dems/Reps whine about it. In my mind if the 3rd party candidate gets my vote it is not because he/she "stole" it from someone else; rather, it is because the other guys didn't deserve/earn my vote. To imply that votes are "stolen" by 3rd party candidates is akin to calling those voters "stupid"; it's insulting.

cheers,

steve

[Med Tech]

I think the main reason 3rd parties are doing so badly, is that they're trying to put the cart before the horse. Every year, the only people in my small-town elections back home are Republicans... No Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc... Moving up to county government, you might find a green or a libertarian, but not much, and if at all, only from the largest urban center in the county.

3rd parties need to break in at the local level before they can take off at the state and national levels. I always vote for at least one third party candidate in each race if their views match mine closely enough, but mostly I'm left with a choice between Rep or Dem, if I have any choice at all. These 3rd parties need to invest in local involvement, information, and putting valid candidates on ballots they can win. These candidates can then get the experience to move up the same way their Rep and Dem opponents get it... The hard way.

[Panther]

That's a good point Med Tech, but in my local races there isn't any party affiliation. No one has to (and rarely does) say what party (if any) they're affiliated with at all. That's good, IMNSHO, because you can talk with the folks and make your decision based on their views. What happens often from that, is when these local politicos decide to make the leap up the political ladder, they realize very quickly that they are doomed unless they get aligned with one of the major parties... EVEN IF they really don't follow the views of either party completely. As an example, I know of (but wouldn't vote for) someone who was moving up the political ladder in Massachusetts that initially ran as an independent (defeated), then as a republican (defeated) and finally as a democrat (lost by a hair in the primary simply because they had once been a republican)! Not really surprising that they have to be a democrat to get elected in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. But what IS surprising is watching this person's attitude and political mindset change over the course of a few years. From an independent, small government ideology changing over time to a lower taxes, we need some government ideology and finally this person states they don't want to have to raise taxes, but we must take care of those who are poor (even illegal immigrants), pay for more infrastructure, grow government, and increase regulations! They've taken on the views that the party requires of them in order to get the party's financial support.

I don't know what the answer is... But think about this... when Abe Lincoln was elected, the Republicans were essentially a third party. Who remembers the original Whig party that was powerful at the beginning of this new nation?

[Med Tech]

I sympathize with you, Panther. I'm from Michigan, a very frustrating state, politically. Almost the entire state is Republican. The state house and senate, and our congressional deligation, is overwhelmingly republican. Yet when it comes time for Senate and Presidential races, the state gets creamed by Detroit, Ann Arbor, and a very small smattering of liberal onclaves up north, and so we have Democratic Senators, and in 2000 went to Gore by a decent majority. Last time the Repubs even lost the governorship to a liberal California-educated Canadian. How's that???

I couldn't imagine living in Mass. This poor Airman couldn't afford the living expense alone, and got out of the San Francisco area as fast as he could. I hated California, where there too you have Republicans and Democrats being no different from the other.

It's sad to hear about people who desire a career in politics so badly, that they gradually give up their core beliefs. It would be even sadder to see someone elected who didn't have any core beliefs. Campaigns, debates, they all seem so fake nowadays. How can Kerry, who has been in the Senate for so long, not run on that record? Who, while running his campaign on his military record, never actually releases that record. How can a press corps that ran the Bush military record so ragged, never raise a fit over Kerry not giving them access to his military record? It's enough to make you want to give up on politics.

As to local races being 'non-partisan.' Well, yes they are on the ballot, but everybody knows what party they allign themselves with. In my hometown, if someone even thinks you're a Democrat, you don't stand a chance on the school board, village council, or even county commission. This is what 3rd parties face, and they're living in Lala Land wasting so much money on presidential elections. There's no way they're going to have some kind of pheonix-like eruption onto the political scene like the Republican Party of old. If people have any sense of history, they realize that the Whig Party disintegrated before the Republicans could make their power grab, and it was touch-and-go, at that. A more recent example of a party's political implosion would have been the 'Reform Party.' Maybe it'll come back, but I don't really care at this point. I wasn't terribly impressed by their platform, either. And I'm certainly not impressed by Jesse Ventura.

The character you described seems to have reached beyond his means. He might have served his convictions (again, if he had any) by assisting similar minds to climb to his level. In this day and age, it's hard to imagine someone sacrificing their wallet to a greater good in this day and age, but it's a thought.

One direction I've been leaning a long time, would be to have run-off elections. People could vote for their concience the first time, pragmatism the second time (if need be). Never happen, of course as long as the Reps and Dems have a stranglehold on the purse-strings and the rule-books... But it's a thought. Start locally, and who knows, in 25-50 years, it might go national... And then again it might not.

[Bill Glasheen]

One direction I've been leaning a long time, would be to have run-off elections.

Once again, beware of the law of unintended consequences. The problem with a straight voting Democracy and runoff elections is that the remaining parties have to "dance with the devil in the moonlight." Fringe parties get extraordinary power because they become bargaining chips for the votes they represent in the runoff.

This is a great thread, Justin. I have plenty to write about here, but I had to shore up my references. I read quite a bit about this very subject a month ago. When I get the material together, I'll share what I learned.

- Bill

[IJ]

"How's that???"

Simple: the side that casts the most votes wins, not the side that controls the most acreage. Why should city dwellers count less? On a national level, why shouldn't the coasts, which tend to vote more Dem, control an election even though the bulk of the country, including the less populated middle, votes more republican? I remember reading some article that praised a teacher for telling her class the country was being ruined by the tyranny of the coasts and showed a brightly colored map of how much more territory the repubs controlled to wow the kids. Rather than praise her, I wanted to send her a copy of "lying with statistics," or something. Map should have had vote density reflected somehow, else she isn't qualified to teach the material or was misrepresenting it on purpose.

[Bill Glasheen]

Good point about the population density, Ian. However I am all for many of the features of our Republic that discourage tyranny of either a majority OR a minority. It's one of the clever features of our government that I so admire. We are NOT a pure Democracy.

By the way, Mr. San Diego, you still have yet to update your profile. Heck, I don't even see you claiming to be part of Red Sox Nation. Time to turn in the address and start pronoucing your R's correctly.

- Bill

[Panther]

But IJ... In days of old, the priviledge of voting was only given to land-owners. The argument then, which actually sounds somewhat reasonable now, is that those who haven't worked hard enough to own property should not be allowed a say in how property is used or allocated.

(now don't get all upset with me... I have friends and family who wouldn't be allowed a vote in that case... and I don't think that is right or fair... just pointing out the "logic" behind that particular voting method...)

[IJ]

Logic from the past is always questionable in retrospect, which should make us wonder about everything we're doing and thinking now... looking back, it seems there was "worked hard for land," and a bit more of "born into the voting class." And heck, I've been working my a$$ off for years and I've only owned property for a month.

It's true, Bill, I'm not updated, but.... gasp! I'm not part of the REd Sox thing, tho I'll be happy for their long suffering fans if they win. They were a parking and litter nightmare and I never saw a game I'm not on the team, and ever since I saw fights in high school over whose football team won, and especially after watching a half dozen soccer riots over the years, and especially since there've been two sports riots deaths and multiple lives ruined in Boston in the last few, I've been unable to get interested in team sports. They seem to deprive some (just some) of their senses so I'm averse to partaking... same reason I've never been drunk.

[Bill Glasheen]

Hey, no problem on the personal habits. I just wondered why the address on your posts still says "Boston."

Fans AND partiers can get out of control.

Before your time at U.Va., Ian, our beloved alma mater was THE party school in the nation. There were four big party weekends. Easters was the biggest, and people came from all over the country to celebrate. It started with the burning of a motor vehicle in Mad Bowl on Wednesday, and the party didn't stop until the end of the day Sunday. And that last day Sunday was an open party in Mad Bowl with bands on one end, mud slides on the other (they'd open a fire hydrant), and grain punch everywhere in the middle (back when it was legal). The number and types of admits to the ER from Wednesday through Sunday each year were the legends that med students and interns would talk about for years.

Then one year, a bunch of frat boys rented a U-Haul van and did a road trip to a local women's college. (NOT on Easters weekend) They stuck the brothers and pledges as cargo in the back. Vehicle gets in accident. Driver was drinking. One dies, and two are permanently disabled. A victim gets a hold of Dewey, Chetham, and Howe, and sued everyone from the Ford Motor Corporation to The University to the National Fraternity. Only for the deep pockets, mind you; the student driver was not a target.

Today, U.Va. bans the use of the name "Easters" for any party.

There's nothing like a bunch of drunks ruining a good party. And there's nothing like a bunch of trial lawyers stepping into a horrible situation and making it even worse.

The cure wasn't the law suit thought. The real cure was 1) raising the drinking age to 21, and 2) folks like me pushing the University to build more gyms. Now getting smashed at parties isn't cool anymore, and the 4 gymnasiums (at least) available to students are more crowded than the frat houses on Friday night.

But I digress...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Back to the subject at hand.

Justin you beat me to the punch on this topic. Here is the reference I read about a month ago. It is a great article, and discusses virtually all of the possible ways an election can be held. It does a beautiful analysis of each method.

Election Dissection
Different polls for different goals.
How voting systems can produce wildly varying results

Here's the skinny.

Condorcet’s Method: In this system, each candidate is coupled with all others on a one-to-one, or paired, match-up. The ballot necessary to list all pairings would be absurdly cumbersome and confusing (and laborious for voters). Results can be paradoxical.

Borda Voting: Voters rank all candidates from first to last. A voter’s first choice is awarded a number of points one less than the number of candidates. The second choice receives one less point than the first, and so on. (The final choice receives no points.) Points are totaled and highest number wins.

Plurality Voting: Each voter chooses one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins (regardless of whether the winner commands a majority).

Approval Voting: Voters give a single point to as many candidates as they consider acceptable, and the candidate with most points wins. This process often leads to electing the least objectionable leader.

Cumulative Voting: This system allots every voter as many votes as there are candidates. A voter can distribute these votes among several candidates or cast all of them for a single one.

Instant Run-off Voting: Voters rank candidates and whomever gets the fewest first-place votes is automatically eliminated. The first-place vote of anyone who voted for the losing candidate is awarded to that voter’s second-place choice. The process continues until one candidate gains a majority.

A number of these voting systems are in practice in various venues, and take advantage of the unique strengths thereof. Details are in the article.

- Bill

[chewy]

I guess the voting method I described is closer to Borda Voting per your descriptions. I agree, that the Condorcet, as written, is way too complicated. Although one could use the Condorcet technique to compute the winner of the Borda vote. What happens behind the scenes with Borda does not really matter. Just rank your candidates and let the gov't figure out if they want he person with the least or most amount of "points" win (i.e., does your number one get 1-point and lowest point count wins or visa-versa).

I think the electoral college served a legitimate porpose a couple of hundred years ago (i.e., to get arround the issue of a largely uneducted and illiterate population), but times have changed (believe it or not ).


steve

[Bill Glasheen]

The Top 25 NCAA coaches polls for football and basketball use the Borda method. It works pretty well for that specific function.

I recently took a personality test in a job interview process that attempted to rank personality traits using a variant of Condorcet's method. They have a long list of personality traits, and they ask you to rank them 5 at a time. They keep asking you that over and over again, using all possible combinations of the available traits. It's a very, very long test. Universally the feeling people have after taking such a test is that it really pi$$es them off. If they want you to rank ALL your personality traits, by golly they should just ask it once and be done with it.

Condorcet's method can also result in you ranking A above B, ranking B above C, and ranking C abouve A. This is what they mean above by paradoxical results.

Next time someone asks me to take that personality test, I know exactly how I will respond.

Nice idea but...

- Bill