There is nothing much more than I can say than that this is so stupid.
We've heard from conspiracy "nuts" back in the 80s and 90s warning us about this kind of thing, and what will happen. Big Brother is getting too much power.
IRV doesn't have a lot of flaws, especially the Avy method. IRV is simply multiple primaries performed at once.
I see Condorcet method as the opposite of ideal. As for the research I've did on the Condorcet method, as far as I can see, it can spoil elections. I'm pretty sure the below has no errors in it.
--------------------
3 voters 5 candidates Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, and Cobb 10 possible pairwises
Voter 1 4 pairwises for Bush 3 pairwises for Nader 1 pairwises for Badnarik 1 pairwise for Kerry 1 pairwise for Cobb
Voter 2 4 pairwises for Kerry 3 pairwises for Badnarik 2 pairwises for Bush
Voter 3 4 pairwises for Nader 2 pairwises for Bush
Total Bush 8 Kerry 5 Nader 7 Badnarik 4 Cobb 1
Voter 3 spoils his chances to election Nader by voting Bush over two out of the three remaining candidates
Here's my understanding. Let's say there are five candidates among seven voters. That's 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 voters per voter.
The most votes any one candidate could get are four, since you could bubble in four bubbles for a given candidate against the other four running.
So hypothetically, let's say there are Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader. If a Kerry voter wanted to be sure no one else could beat Kerry, he or she could simply fill in the four Kerry bubbles and ignore the other six pairwises to prevent spoilage. Cause every point given to Nader for example, is one more point the voter's first choice (of Kerry) could lose.
It's in my opinion that IRV is the next logical step, since it's just multiple primaries. And it's not confusing either.
You mean the one I keep hearing about that cost $299 per eye? This may be a bit off topic. Some say cheap surgery carries risks. Well, for eye surgery, perhaps I would travel and only get one eye done, that way if they mess up, I still have another one I can use.
It's my current opinion that there is another solution than getting rid of the electoral college. Why don't we do what Maine and Nebraska do for electoral votes? Go by the winner of Congressional Districts and have the state winner take the two electoral votes? In addition, what about using IRV in this method (which isn't done there I believe)?
Except my batteries (mouse batteries) are rechargeable ones I recharge from a grid that gets its power from hydroelectricity if I'm not mistaken. Of course, there's probably pollution from that still, but minor compared to other methods.
There's a problem when legit businesses sell your personal information (full name for example) to those 419/Nigerian scammers. And yes, it does happen. Of course, not sure if they can be called "legit" anymore.
"I see your shopping list contains two items that may be used in bomb making or for creating meth. Your local police department has been notified and will pick you up for questioning in five minutes.
We thank you for shopping here, and have a nice day!"
If Democrats and Republicans were completey out of the picture, who would replace them? Someone has to vote for someone, otherwise it would be a very low turnout.
We have a better chance of seeing proportional representation in the House of Representatives before seeing a third party in the White House in this day and age.
But once proportional representation becomes a reality, I'm sure people are going to start voting their hearts instead of voting for one of the top two.
Even if Nader's not one's choice, it could be any other third party candidate. Some argue that third parties steal votes away from the top two. Who says I'm even going to vote for one of the top two period? Even if it were only between Kerry and Bush on the ballot, perhaps I'd write on the ballot an obscene message for limiting my voting choices.
Some could argue that Kerry is stealing votes away from Nader, not the other way around. That if the Democratic Party stopped participating in Presidential elections, Nader would win.
Here's how I understand Condorcet to work. I could hypothetically fill in all the C bubbles, which may reflect Nader, giving him a total of "5 points".
A ballot would look like this. A bubble bubble B A bubble bubble C A bubble bubble D A bubble bubble E B bubble bubble C B bubble bubble D B bubble bubble E C bubble bubble D C bubble bubble E D bubble bubble E
As for IRV, I say the Avy method of IRV fixes one of the flaws. Plus IRV in general doesn't violate "one vote, one person", as Condorcet would. Condorcet violates "one vote, one person" in the way I can give points to each candidate. And IRV is like having multiple primaries all at once, with the last place being eliminated.
But honestly, either method, Condorcet or simply IRV, would be better than our current flawed system of plurality.
What about the Avy method of Instant Runoff Voting? When comparing Avy method of IRV or just IRV alone against plurality voting, in my honest opinion, either one is better. Cause with plurality voting, you can get elected with a very small percentage of votes.
The candidate with the most pairwise selection wins. Like one voter can choose perhaps 4 for Gore out of a possible 5 pairwise situations for Gore. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What does 50%+1 have to do with Condorcet? And Condorcet isn't ranked. It's more of a point system, with the candidate with the most approval type points winning, in a sense. And it is pairings. It's one candidate versus another. With 6 candidates, that would be 5+4+3+2+1, a total of 15 pairings, for the lack of a better term.
I'm waiting for someone to e-mail me back concerning the Avy method of IRV versus Condorcet, (but not sure if he's going to explain it or not for me.)
Here's some of my comments... A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method? B) If my two favourite candidates were Gore and Nader in 2000, then I would bubble in all the Gore and Nader ones in the pairwise, leaving one of those bubbles blank when it comes to Gore vs. Nader. But Nader may be spoiling Gore's chances of winning if I bubble in Nader in the Nader vs. Gore cause what if that one point could have helped Gore? C) Yes, IRV has some flaws. But the Avy method of IRV supposedly helps eliminate some of the flaws. D) It's in my honest opinion that all/most democracy is flawed, and the only thing we have to gain from it is the wisdom/knowledge we gain from our mistakes.
One change we need to do is to keep proportional representation in the House of Representatives. With small states, this may be hard to get a third party in cause the lower pecentage may be quite high.
If I'm not mistaken, here in Washington State, with nine Congressional Districts, that's 11.1% of the vote needed to get a third party in.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing much more than I can say than that this is so stupid.
We've heard from conspiracy "nuts" back in the 80s and 90s warning us about this kind of thing, and what will happen. Big Brother is getting too much power.
I seriously hope this doesn't pass.
IRV doesn't have a lot of flaws, especially the Avy method. IRV is simply multiple primaries performed at once.
I see Condorcet method as the opposite of ideal. As for the research I've did on the Condorcet method, as far as I can see, it can spoil elections. I'm pretty sure the below has no errors in it.
--------------------
3 voters
5 candidates Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, and Cobb
10 possible pairwises
Voter 1
4 pairwises for Bush
3 pairwises for Nader
1 pairwises for Badnarik
1 pairwise for Kerry
1 pairwise for Cobb
Voter 2
4 pairwises for Kerry
3 pairwises for Badnarik
2 pairwises for Bush
Voter 3
4 pairwises for Nader
2 pairwises for Bush
Total
Bush 8
Kerry 5
Nader 7
Badnarik 4
Cobb 1
Voter 3 spoils his chances to election Nader by voting Bush over two out of the three remaining candidates
Here's my understanding. Let's say there are five candidates among seven voters. That's 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 voters per voter.
The most votes any one candidate could get are four, since you could bubble in four bubbles for a given candidate against the other four running.
So hypothetically, let's say there are Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader. If a Kerry voter wanted to be sure no one else could beat Kerry, he or she could simply fill in the four Kerry bubbles and ignore the other six pairwises to prevent spoilage. Cause every point given to Nader for example, is one more point the voter's first choice (of Kerry) could lose.
It's in my opinion that IRV is the next logical step, since it's just multiple primaries. And it's not confusing either.
With Approval Voting, it seems to violate the idea of one person, one vote. Same with Condorcet.
IRV is simply having multiple primaries with the weakest candidate being eliminated with vote transferring.
Technically, it's not a lawn mower if it doesn't mow the lawn, isn't it?
(This comment is meant to sound humourous obviously.)
You mean the one I keep hearing about that cost $299 per eye? This may be a bit off topic. Some say cheap surgery carries risks. Well, for eye surgery, perhaps I would travel and only get one eye done, that way if they mess up, I still have another one I can use.
It's my current opinion that there is another solution than getting rid of the electoral college. Why don't we do what Maine and Nebraska do for electoral votes? Go by the winner of Congressional Districts and have the state winner take the two electoral votes? In addition, what about using IRV in this method (which isn't done there I believe)?
I could have sworn I was logged into a9.com with my GMail account. It's not happening now, but it's weird. I could very well be wrong.
Why not offer a $20 "tax rebate" if someone has voted in all of the elections in a given year?
Except my batteries (mouse batteries) are rechargeable ones I recharge from a grid that gets its power from hydroelectricity if I'm not mistaken. Of course, there's probably pollution from that still, but minor compared to other methods.
What about pollution from this? Has that even been considered?
There's a problem when legit businesses sell your personal information (full name for example) to those 419/Nigerian scammers. And yes, it does happen. Of course, not sure if they can be called "legit" anymore.
"I see your shopping list contains two items that may be used in bomb making or for creating meth. Your local police department has been notified and will pick you up for questioning in five minutes.
We thank you for shopping here, and have a nice day!"
If Democrats and Republicans were completey out of the picture, who would replace them? Someone has to vote for someone, otherwise it would be a very low turnout.
We have a better chance of seeing proportional representation in the House of Representatives before seeing a third party in the White House in this day and age.
But once proportional representation becomes a reality, I'm sure people are going to start voting their hearts instead of voting for one of the top two.
Even if Nader's not one's choice, it could be any other third party candidate. Some argue that third parties steal votes away from the top two. Who says I'm even going to vote for one of the top two period? Even if it were only between Kerry and Bush on the ballot, perhaps I'd write on the ballot an obscene message for limiting my voting choices.
Some could argue that Kerry is stealing votes away from Nader, not the other way around. That if the Democratic Party stopped participating in Presidential elections, Nader would win.
Here's how I understand Condorcet to work. I could hypothetically fill in all the C bubbles, which may reflect Nader, giving him a total of "5 points".
A ballot would look like this.
A bubble bubble B
A bubble bubble C
A bubble bubble D
A bubble bubble E
B bubble bubble C
B bubble bubble D
B bubble bubble E
C bubble bubble D
C bubble bubble E
D bubble bubble E
As for IRV, I say the Avy method of IRV fixes one of the flaws. Plus IRV in general doesn't violate "one vote, one person", as Condorcet would. Condorcet violates "one vote, one person" in the way I can give points to each candidate. And IRV is like having multiple primaries all at once, with the last place being eliminated.
But honestly, either method, Condorcet or simply IRV, would be better than our current flawed system of plurality.
Write-in is not a problem with IRV as you can see with San Francisco's ballot.
What about the Avy method of Instant Runoff Voting? When comparing Avy method of IRV or just IRV alone against plurality voting, in my honest opinion, either one is better. Cause with plurality voting, you can get elected with a very small percentage of votes.
But I think the Avy method of IRV passes one more of the four/five than simply using IRV alone.
The candidate with the most pairwise selection wins. Like one voter can choose perhaps 4 for Gore out of a possible 5 pairwise situations for Gore. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What does 50%+1 have to do with Condorcet? And Condorcet isn't ranked. It's more of a point system, with the candidate with the most approval type points winning, in a sense. And it is pairings. It's one candidate versus another. With 6 candidates, that would be 5+4+3+2+1, a total of 15 pairings, for the lack of a better term.
http://www.vsg.edu.au/frames/x/lesson1.html
1. Plurality Method
2. Borda Count Method
3. Plurality with Elimination Method
4. Pairwise Comparisons Method (Copeland's Method)
I'm waiting for someone to e-mail me back concerning the Avy method of IRV versus Condorcet, (but not sure if he's going to explain it or not for me.)
Here's some of my comments...
A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method?
B) If my two favourite candidates were Gore and Nader in 2000, then I would bubble in all the Gore and Nader ones in the pairwise, leaving one of those bubbles blank when it comes to Gore vs. Nader.
But Nader may be spoiling Gore's chances of winning if I bubble in Nader in the Nader vs. Gore cause what if that one point could have helped Gore?
C) Yes, IRV has some flaws. But the Avy method of IRV supposedly helps eliminate some of the flaws.
D) It's in my honest opinion that all/most democracy is flawed, and the only thing we have to gain from it is the wisdom/knowledge we gain from our mistakes.
One change we need to do is to keep proportional representation in the House of Representatives. With small states, this may be hard to get a third party in cause the lower pecentage may be quite high.
If I'm not mistaken, here in Washington State, with nine Congressional Districts, that's 11.1% of the vote needed to get a third party in.
Doesn't there have to be probable cause a crime has been committed? Don't they have to have some sort of proof before doing this?
Isn't this like someone going to the police saying, "Oh, I think those ten houses may have something of mine, but I'm not sure."