Problem is, if anyone gets the 5%, they will raise the bar for the next election. It's the Democrats and Republicans holding up each end of the bar, after all. How high can the bar go before the general public notices and cares about what going on?
Changing the electoral system in a way to benefit third parties can't be gradual, changes must be so swift and sudden that any attempt by the incumbents to retaliate by changing the law will be obvious and ugly.
Systems like Condorcet's Method voting are technically superior but use a lot of math and are complicated to explain. If you can't explain it in a thirty second sound bite you won't get able to get enough popular support to get it passed.
It all boils down to how you explain things. Not everyone is going to stay awake long enough to understand the math and matrix explanations. So use a different strategy, one that hinges on two nonmathematical concepts.:
Experts have proven that better methods exist, such as IRV which is used in Europe and numerous other jurisdictions and Condorcet which is even better but has yet to be adopted anywhere.
It is unamerican for an innovative nation such as the US to use an obsolete EC system that even morons know to be defective. We should be the first in the world to use the superior and innovative Condorcet Method.
The only problem left to solve is what to name the darn thing, condorcet is too French, condoset (that's the GA pronunciation) sounds like its only for city people, these names and others such as "Fair Voting" are too vague, subjective, and unscientific sounding. Not that everyone wants to understand the details, but just slapping the world "Fair" onto a system doesn't make it so. Most Americans are wise to the subjective labeling trick.
How about Pair-Wise Ranking? That sounds meaningful without exactly contradicting itself. It communicates that candidates are ranked and every pairing is significant. That's a good enough theoretical explanation for most and a start in the right direction for those who want to know more. Even the smartest person in the world can't infer anything useful from the word "Condorcet" except that it's French.
In over 200 years, no other jurisdiction in the world has adopted our brilliant Electoral College idea. The US Presidential election is the only implementation in the world. Many other parts of our system have been borrowed and improved on by others, but not this EC thing. They stay clear of it, not a single bit is salvagable.
IRV is used in various jurisdictions in Europe, Condorcet, to the best of my googling ability, isn't. The US has no excuse to have a system that is clearly proven to be inferior to other systems. We should use our US-is-Best mentality to get rid of EC and our Do-It-Our-Own-Way mentality to replace it with Condorcet.
They could do so much better and without the checkpoints. All they need are a tracking chip in your passport and/or national ID card and readers embedded in entrances to transportation systems. They could make it very attractive and sell it as a "freedom pass" so you could bypass customs, immigrations, and airport security. Yeah, if they put a positive spin on it, they could get 90% of the population to approve, then the other 10% would look like we've got something to hide and get the punishment we deserve simply for standing in the shameful, body check line, all because we didn't bother to buy a "freedom pass"
It would be nice if you could program a subset of those 1000 channels onto discrete knob positions. Instead of having a row of 10 radio buttons programmed to your 10 favorite channels, you'd have a knob with 10 programmable positions. It would be analog to the person, but digital to the machine. This is already done, but not in consumer electronics. It's been eons since knobs on radios were really analog, but somehow, probably because of cost and size, knobs aren't popping up on televisions and computers. Every penny spent on a consumer device costs thousands of dollars to the manufacturer. As long as the consumer doesn't mind pushing buttons instead of twisting knobs, why should the manufacturer go to the added expense. The only spec most consumers pay attention to is the one behind the $. Besides, convenience is the only quality not normallly mentioned on a spec sheet, maybe someone should quantify it.
Knobs *are* a simpler human interface, but they cost more in every respect. They are mechanically more complicated, they take up more space (usually) and they are more complicated to use in a design (more pins and they go deeper behind the control panel). However, maybe it is time to use more knobs that are really digital and only seem analog (kinda like on a ham handi-talkie. To the user, even a knob with discrete positions seems analog in that each position can be thought of as corresponding to options that are in arranged in space even if that space is not physical, but spectrum or even purely imaginary.
Great, does anyone else use the term TMV? I'll do some googling, wikipediaing, etc. Some Americans would find being first a positive, but others would love to see it in action somewhere. We need to get one or more of our 50 laboratories onto it. then Americans would still be first,
Does any country or political unit in the word use Condorcet? What do they call it? Call it that, especially if it is a country Americans respect. IRV is used in quite a few places already, that makes it easier to sell, but I don't know who uses Condorcet.
You could explain it to any part of the population that understands how a Round Robin Tournment is organized. Although you can use a ranked ballot, each possible pair combination is considered a game, and whoever wins the most games wins the election.
For example, if my true preferences are Nader > Kerry > Bush, I have to decide whether I'm going to vote for Nader+Kerry or just Nader
It's simple, if Nader and Kerry are close, vote for Nader, if Kerry and Bush are close, vote for Nader+Kerry, if Nader and Bush are close, vote for Nader, if all 3 are close, throw your hands up and say it must not matter anyway since they are so close, just like half the Americans do under the current system.
No, I don't see any advantage of approval voting over the current system. When you throw realistic numbers at it, the strategy is just as difficult and the results are too much the same.
Approval reintrodues the problem of strategic voting. If I have 3 candidates, one who I strongly prefer, one who I hate, and one who I could live with if I had to, how do I vote so that my prefered candidate has an advantage over the middle guy and the middle guy has an advantage over the guy I hate? With a ranked system, I don't need to think about it.
Once IRV is accepted, the only thing left to explain to the public is how Condorcet eliminates the spoiler effect. Condorcet is much easier to explain once the public has been sold on proportional voting. IRV is the easiest PV to explain.
When IRV is accepted, start selling Condorcet. If an election happens where the difference between IRV and Condorcet matters, then you have a strong argument to switch, and the switch will be easier since it follows shortly on the heels of the IRV vote.
Besides, what's the point of E-voting? It doesn't speed up the voting process. In fact, it can slow it down significantly, as was demonstrated in the venezuelan referendum, where the average time in queue for a simple Yes/No vote was about 8 hours (by far, the longest ever in a venezuelan election).
The only advantage that I can see is that it has a chance to detect user errors and alert the voter to correct them. But, apparently that isn't happening.
You need some links, here's a handy search engine that I used to find HR5293. Then, to take action, go to http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/, look up your people and contact them. BTW, dead tree letters and faxes work better than email.
I personally prefer both IRV and Condorcet to the current system. Between the two, condorcet is better, but until the debate enters the mainstream, my favorite term is simply the more generic Proportional Representation.
Actually, I'm quite confident about my county's electronic system. We were covered on slashdot last year at some point because the votes took an extra day to count. (Anyone remember Fairfax County, VA. Just south of DC) The reason? The software was designed to dial into an election computer so it could tally all the votes. The "Disconect" routine was forgoten when it was programmed so the machines never hung up. Its fixed now. And before anyone says something about the machines being insecure, I was talking to the election commisioner for the county. She made sure they were as secure as they could be made. I'm not gonna worry about it.
Yeah, my hardcopy teletype was awesomely fast at 110 baud, I loved to watch it type. It was twice as fast as me.
Are Nader Voters mindless morons?
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Surely Nader Voters know what they are doing. In fact, they probably put more thought into their vote than those people who vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" their vote. Nader isn't forcing anyone to vote for him. Even if Nader or other third party candidates "can't win" the election, a vote for Nader is a vote for election reform.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't Moslems claim to worship the same God? Why would God's work involve such massive sibling rivalry?
"Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells?
Sure, isn't that the advertising slogan for a Colt handgun or a missile?
Changing the electoral system in a way to benefit third parties can't be gradual, changes must be so swift and sudden that any attempt by the incumbents to retaliate by changing the law will be obvious and ugly.
It all boils down to how you explain things. Not everyone is going to stay awake long enough to understand the math and matrix explanations. So use a different strategy, one that hinges on two nonmathematical concepts.:
Experts have proven that better methods exist, such as IRV which is used in Europe and numerous other jurisdictions and Condorcet which is even better but has yet to be adopted anywhere.
It is unamerican for an innovative nation such as the US to use an obsolete EC system that even morons know to be defective. We should be the first in the world to use the superior and innovative Condorcet Method.
The only problem left to solve is what to name the darn thing, condorcet is too French, condoset (that's the GA pronunciation) sounds like its only for city people, these names and others such as "Fair Voting" are too vague, subjective, and unscientific sounding. Not that everyone wants to understand the details, but just slapping the world "Fair" onto a system doesn't make it so. Most Americans are wise to the subjective labeling trick.
How about Pair-Wise Ranking? That sounds meaningful without exactly contradicting itself. It communicates that candidates are ranked and every pairing is significant. That's a good enough theoretical explanation for most and a start in the right direction for those who want to know more. Even the smartest person in the world can't infer anything useful from the word "Condorcet" except that it's French.
IRV is used in various jurisdictions in Europe, Condorcet, to the best of my googling ability, isn't. The US has no excuse to have a system that is clearly proven to be inferior to other systems. We should use our US-is-Best mentality to get rid of EC and our Do-It-Our-Own-Way mentality to replace it with Condorcet.
They could do so much better and without the checkpoints. All they need are a tracking chip in your passport and/or national ID card and readers embedded in entrances to transportation systems. They could make it very attractive and sell it as a "freedom pass" so you could bypass customs, immigrations, and airport security. Yeah, if they put a positive spin on it, they could get 90% of the population to approve, then the other 10% would look like we've got something to hide and get the punishment we deserve simply for standing in the shameful, body check line, all because we didn't bother to buy a "freedom pass"
The only one, Sirius Kase TM Do I know you by another handle?
It probably has more to do with typing ability. Can you imagine how tough it must be if your fingers are all different lengths?
It would be nice if you could program a subset of those 1000 channels onto discrete knob positions. Instead of having a row of 10 radio buttons programmed to your 10 favorite channels, you'd have a knob with 10 programmable positions. It would be analog to the person, but digital to the machine. This is already done, but not in consumer electronics. It's been eons since knobs on radios were really analog, but somehow, probably because of cost and size, knobs aren't popping up on televisions and computers. Every penny spent on a consumer device costs thousands of dollars to the manufacturer. As long as the consumer doesn't mind pushing buttons instead of twisting knobs, why should the manufacturer go to the added expense. The only spec most consumers pay attention to is the one behind the $. Besides, convenience is the only quality not normallly mentioned on a spec sheet, maybe someone should quantify it.
Knobs *are* a simpler human interface, but they cost more in every respect. They are mechanically more complicated, they take up more space (usually) and they are more complicated to use in a design (more pins and they go deeper behind the control panel). However, maybe it is time to use more knobs that are really digital and only seem analog (kinda like on a ham handi-talkie. To the user, even a knob with discrete positions seems analog in that each position can be thought of as corresponding to options that are in arranged in space even if that space is not physical, but spectrum or even purely imaginary.
If so, how unlikely is it to happen?
Great, does anyone else use the term TMV? I'll do some googling, wikipediaing, etc. Some Americans would find being first a positive, but others would love to see it in action somewhere. We need to get one or more of our 50 laboratories onto it. then Americans would still be first,
Does any country or political unit in the word use Condorcet? What do they call it? Call it that, especially if it is a country Americans respect. IRV is used in quite a few places already, that makes it easier to sell, but I don't know who uses Condorcet.
You could explain it to any part of the population that understands how a Round Robin Tournment is organized. Although you can use a ranked ballot, each possible pair combination is considered a game, and whoever wins the most games wins the election.
It's simple, if Nader and Kerry are close, vote for Nader, if Kerry and Bush are close, vote for Nader+Kerry, if Nader and Bush are close, vote for Nader, if all 3 are close, throw your hands up and say it must not matter anyway since they are so close, just like half the Americans do under the current system.
No, I don't see any advantage of approval voting over the current system. When you throw realistic numbers at it, the strategy is just as difficult and the results are too much the same.
Approval reintrodues the problem of strategic voting. If I have 3 candidates, one who I strongly prefer, one who I hate, and one who I could live with if I had to, how do I vote so that my prefered candidate has an advantage over the middle guy and the middle guy has an advantage over the guy I hate? With a ranked system, I don't need to think about it.
When IRV is accepted, start selling Condorcet. If an election happens where the difference between IRV and Condorcet matters, then you have a strong argument to switch, and the switch will be easier since it follows shortly on the heels of the IRV vote.
The only advantage that I can see is that it has a chance to detect user errors and alert the voter to correct them. But, apparently that isn't happening.
I personally prefer both IRV and Condorcet to the current system. Between the two, condorcet is better, but until the debate enters the mainstream, my favorite term is simply the more generic Proportional Representation.
I want to start a new party with only two blanks, one to reform the voting system, two to schedule another election.
Nah, everyone knows that slashdotters are all a bunch of luddites. Doesn't matter what we think.
I sure hope that you forgot your sarcasm tag
In my day, the school owned the teletype and hundreds of students stood in line for the privilige of using it at 110 baud.
Yeah, my hardcopy teletype was awesomely fast at 110 baud, I loved to watch it type. It was twice as fast as me.
Surely Nader Voters know what they are doing. In fact, they probably put more thought into their vote than those people who vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" their vote. Nader isn't forcing anyone to vote for him. Even if Nader or other third party candidates "can't win" the election, a vote for Nader is a vote for election reform.