Slashdot Mirror
"Cumulative Voting" Method Gaining Attention
Local ID10T writes "The AP reports on a system of voting, called 'cumulative voting,' which was just used under court order in Port Chester, NY. Under this system, voters can apportion their votes as they wish — all to one candidate, one to each candidate, or any combination. The system, which has been used in Alabama, Illinois, South Dakota, Texas, and New York, allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates. Courts are increasingly mandating cumulative voting when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation." Wikipedia notes that cumulative voting "was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 until its repeal in 1980," without saying why the system was abandoned.
There are also a lot of other parties, however they didn't make it in any parliament. But there are parties for families, "true to the Bible"-Christians, or a party with yogic flyer called natural law party (however they dissolved 2004).
It really is unfortunate that STV, proportional or otherwise, hasn't caught on more. You can sell instant-runoff voting in three sentences: "You can vote the new way or continue voting the old way. To vote the new way, number the candidates from 1 to n in your order of preference. To vote the old way, mark the candidate you want to vote for as 1 and leave the rest blank." There's really no disadvantage to it... except that it would give third parties a foothold against the entrenched two-party system, so why would any politician in power bother to support it? (Sorry to sound so cynical, on Slashdot no less.)
Sadly, the notion that right-versus-left is American politics is getting more entrenched as well. The voters in my home state of California unfortunately just passed a ballot measure that will allow only two candidates on the ballot for any state general election. So long, third parties. Granted, most voters were probably taken in by the promise of open primaries, which was wrapped up in the same proposition and dominated the discussion. But that's just what was so outrageous about it: no one bothers to think that politics can be more subtle than Democrats versus Republicans.
"This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
and was hard for voters to understand.
Is there any alternative voting system which isn't "hard for voters to understand"? Of all the weaselly excuses to keep FPTP that is the lamest.
Seriously. If you can't understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumballot.gif
then maybe you shouldn't be voting.
That's quite an unfortunate filename.
"I'll wager that a countryman's half of all Churchill quotations are fictions, dream'd up on a whim to aid the malarkinations of sophists and deceivers. I for one have never met the fucker, and know not one man of good sense who hath."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yeah, people should really be using PNG these days.
Because they'll vote for Sarah Palin.
We should represent our greatest heros with care. Churchill was by no means perfect but he was one of the best of us and is still held in the highest regard in Britain. There's no reason to sully his reputation with truncated quotations:
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,”...
let our hero continue: ... “making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [i.e., tear] gas.”
The theme is concluded thus:
“The moral effect should be so good as to keep loss of life reduced to a minimum” and “Gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror yet would leave no serious permanent effect on most of those affected.”
I think you'll agree that the full text befits his reputation as Britain's visionary saviour, whereas the person who first sought to sully his reputation by offering up into popular currency the truncated misrepresentation of his view deserves shame.
Why are liberals so scared of Palin...
You don't have to be liberal to be scared of Palin. I fear Palin because she represents that absolute worst of politicians. She is totally ignorant, yet is so arrogant that she thinks that ignorance makes her more legitimate and "real". She literally thinks that she doesn't have to know anything, because God will give her the answer through prayer.
I freaking HATE Palin. She is the absolute definition of a brainless demagogue.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Scared? Hardly.
Fear and dislike are completely different. And being a "strong willed woman" is not the problem. I've happily been voting for Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for years now. And it'd be very hard to say that any on them are not strong-willed. In palin's case though. the overt malice, mind-boggling stupidity, and insufferably snotty attitude just lead to a pure and intense visceral emotional dislike of her. And that's *before* considering the damage she would do to the country if she were ever to wind up in a position of significant power.
Imagine all the people...