tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post3392244824945020366..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: Restoring American Democracy: A ProposalAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-46248743139746111882007-08-30T23:54:00.000-07:002007-08-30T23:54:00.000-07:00BROKEN LADDER said...Range Voting, and its simplif...BROKEN LADDER said...<BR/><BR/><EM>Range Voting, and its simplified form of Approval Voting, are both robustly superior to Borda - although Borda is arguably better than Instant Runoff Voting.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/BordaExec.html" REL="nofollow">Range Voting</A></EM><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link. What we need now is some political "clout". The various state legislatures are unlikely to "mess" with the system that put them in power. What any alternative method needs now is enough clout to overcome the very method it intends to replace.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-65487765154922198132007-08-30T23:44:00.000-07:002007-08-30T23:44:00.000-07:00thanks, NCI had just recently become interested in...thanks, NC<BR/><BR/>I had just recently become interested in Borda Counts just prior to the "election" of 2000. Sure enough, the election itself justified my interest. Discover Magazine, I believe, had published an excellent article at about that at the time and, since, my friend Dr. John Lienhard of the U of H broadcast an excellent albeit brief analysis of alternative polling systems. One of his commentaries can be found <A HREF="http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1921.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>I think what it needed at this point is a system --perhaps "range voting" --that addresses Kenneth Arrow's critique. It will probably require either a national referendum or a new Constitutional Convention (we have that right, btw) to effect any meaningful changes. And, of course, any change will be opposed vociferously by both major parties eager to protect their turf and big contributors.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-49370442613817370922007-08-30T23:40:00.000-07:002007-08-30T23:40:00.000-07:00Range Voting, and its simplified form of Approval ...Range Voting, and its simplified form of Approval Voting, are both robustly superior to Borda - although Borda is arguably better than Instant Runoff Voting.<BR/><BR/>http://rangevoting.org/BordaExec.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-12421247706222435252007-08-30T19:54:00.000-07:002007-08-30T19:54:00.000-07:00Great post, EC -- As an independent voter, I compl...Great post, EC -- As an independent voter, I completely support all the variations you point to for Instant Runoff Voting. I came by your blog by way of Steve Rankin at Free Citizen and I'm of a mind to link you to my blog The Hankster! Thanks to both of you...<BR/><BR/>As to "A recent Gallup poll indicates more Americans now identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans —a shift that may give Democrats a long term edge," I would add, as a political independent, that current polls are showing that 40-43% of the American electorate identify as independent, regardless of party registration, meaning that they choose the candidate they vote for based on issues over party label. The numbers are sometimes surprising: 32% Dem, 31% Repub, 37% independent for local registration...<BR/><BR/>Lest we forget, it was independent voters who put the issue of the war in Iraq on the national agenda (and I would say that was because of independents' willingness to approach the problem with "fresh eyes" -- not reactive to a long-term partisan strategy to keep the politicians employed...) and it was independents who "swung" Dem to create the change-over in the 2006 elections. This is also indicative of a move to the left by independents. A good thing for our country!<BR/><BR/>Thanks, NancyNancy Hankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17428253702914703243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-64924030640382595022007-08-30T10:23:00.000-07:002007-08-30T10:23:00.000-07:00Thanks for the links BROKEN LADDER...My brief over...Thanks for the links BROKEN LADDER...<BR/><BR/>My brief overview was intended to merely raise awareness of 1) the limitations of our present system and 2) the possibilities for true Democracy os alternative systems by which the "will of the people" may be determined. <BR/><BR/>I am not committed to a particular system at this time while leaning generally to any system which "ranks" selections as opposed the simple approval voting. <BR/><BR/>I will check out all our links and urge the readers here to do likewise. I would appreciate your views on the "Borda Count" as opposed to simple "approval" methods. <BR/><BR/>Again ...thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-33784797233228863702007-08-30T07:42:00.000-07:002007-08-30T07:42:00.000-07:00Range Voting, the simplest form of which is Approv...<A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/" REL="nofollow">Range Voting</A>, the simplest form of which is <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html" REL="nofollow">Approval Voting</A>, is simpler and greatly superior to Instant Runoff Voting in several ways, not the least of which is that it allows more than two parties to flourish (whereas IRV has a long history of <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/IRV.html" REL="nofollow">resulting in two-party duopoly</A> in all four countries where it has seen long-term widespread use).<BR/><BR/>The ultimate objective measure of this is called "<A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/vsi.html" REL="nofollow">social utility efficiency</A>", and is an objective economic metric of how well a voting method satisfies voter preferences. So YOU, Joe Voter, will be happier on average with Range Voting than with IRV. And the difference is huge.<BR/><BR/>Also, you mentioned <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/ArrowThm.html" REL="nofollow">Arrow's Theorem</A>, but forgot to point out that it only applies to ordinal (rank-order) voting methods, like IRV - <I>not</I> to cardinal methods, namely Range Voting and Approval Voting. Arrow's theorem is one of the most widely misunderstood and misquoted things in the discussion of election methods. And it's arguably less significant than the <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/GabbSat.html" REL="nofollow">Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem</A>, which also applies only to ordinal methods.<BR/><BR/>Clay Shentrup<BR/>San Francisco, CA<BR/>clay@electopia.org<BR/>415.240.1973Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-82102880345418126742007-08-28T13:35:00.000-07:002007-08-28T13:35:00.000-07:00Christopher I said... Since, as you say, both ...Christopher I said...<BR/><BR/><EM> Since, as you say, both major parties would reject out of hand the “approval rating” system and the “Borda count”, the most feasible possibility left is a run-off vote between the two top presidential candidates if neither had received more than 50% of the popular vote the first time around.</EM><BR/><BR/>I should have been a bit more specific. All candidates of all parties would be on all ballots in all states and precincts. In a simple "approval ballot", the voter checks all "acceptable" candidates. In the "Borda Count" specifically, the candidates are ranked and scored. No run-off. <BR/><BR/><EM> What this has against it is that having suffered the trauma of having voted a week or so before, people would again have to drag themselves to the voting booths. </EM><BR/><BR/>No runoff. That's why it's called an "instant runoff".<BR/><BR/><EM>Of course, choosing a president by popular vote can be a two-edged sword depending on who you like.</EM><BR/><BR/>That's Democracy for you. <BR/><BR/><EM> If a Republican, your candidate, George Bush, would have lost in 2000. And, if a Democrat, your candidate, Kerry, would have lost in 2004, no questions asked, since Bush received 3 million more votes than did Kerry. A recount in Ohio wouldn’t have put much of a dent in this popular-vote margin of victory.</EM><BR/><BR/>In a Borda count, Gore would have won decisively. Such a system would, of necessity, eliminate the Electoral College, which empowers state "machines" --machines which steal elections. A national popular vote by "preference" methods would breathe new life into American democracy, a prospect which scares hell out of the establishment. <BR/><BR/><EM> A run-off between the two top candidates can also cut two ways, depending on which party you favour. Since Ross Perot in 1992, with his 19% of the vote, probably took more votes away from daddy Bush than Clinton, daddy Bush would likely have won in a two-man runoff.</EM><BR/><BR/>Instant run-off. <BR/><BR/><EM> As to the electoral college, the planned ballot initiative in California next year, which proposes the presidential electoral votes in that state be apportioned according to the popular vote, must be causing Democrats to sweat just a little, since approval of this initiative would almost certainly mean the near impossibility of a Democrat ever again becoming president.</EM><BR/><BR/>The electoral college is a relic. It's hard to imagine how Madison, brilliant in every other respect, could have gone along with such a scheme. <BR/><BR/><EM> However, a nation-wide popular-vote election, would remove this spectre.</EM><BR/><BR/>It would, indeed! The best point in favor of such a system is simply this: no more wasted votes. Third Party candidates would cease to be spoilers and votes for them would cease to be wasted. Implicit in the current system is the fact that any vote for any candidate other than those getting the big bucks from the big lobbyists and campaign contributors (usually the same folk) is wasted. Ballots may get longer ---but that could be a good thing. It might even spark a debate beyond the narrow paradigm, beyond the Clintonesque "center" that has all but sucked the life blood out of American political debate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-71089611223589767142007-08-28T12:48:00.000-07:002007-08-28T12:48:00.000-07:00Since, as you say, both major parties would reject...Since, as you say, both major parties would reject out of hand the “approval rating” system and the “Borda count”, the most feasible possibility left is a run-off vote between the two top presidential candidates if neither had received more than 50% of the popular vote the first time around. <BR/><BR/>What this has against it is that having suffered the trauma of having voted a week or so before, people would again have to drag themselves to the voting booths. But I’m sure Americans would be up to it, since, if the French can do it, why not Americans? <BR/><BR/>Of course, choosing a president by popular vote can be a two-edged sword depending on who you like. If a Republican, your candidate, George Bush, would have lost in 2000. And, if a Democrat, your candidate, Kerry, would have lost in 2004, no questions asked, since Bush received 3 million more votes than did Kerry. A recount in Ohio wouldn’t have put much of a dent in this popular-vote margin of victory. <BR/><BR/>A run-off between the two top candidates can also cut two ways, depending on which party you favour. Since Ross Perot in 1992, with his 19% of the vote, probably took more votes away from daddy Bush than Clinton, daddy Bush would likely have won in a two-man runoff. <BR/><BR/>As to the electoral college, the planned ballot initiative in California next year, which proposes the presidential electoral votes in that state be apportioned according to the popular vote, must be causing Democrats to sweat just a little, since approval of this initiative would almost certainly mean the near impossibility of a Democrat ever again becoming president. <BR/><BR/>However, a nation-wide popular-vote election, would remove this spectre.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378087326571746733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-31046030040642024042007-08-28T12:35:00.000-07:002007-08-28T12:35:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378087326571746733noreply@blogger.com