Vadum: Poor people voting? That's Un-American!

[Mlle Antéchrist]

But back to the main issue: how do you reconcile the fact that a majority of people DO NOT want the Conservative Party to be the governing party, but yet the Conservative Party IS the governing party? I realize that the House of Commons is not elected on a national basis but in ridings: was the Conservative Party elected by a majority vote in a majority of ridings?

Like I said earlier, I support alternative voting (e.g., ranked ballots) for this very reason. I'm not terribly pleased with the fact that the Conservatives were able to get a majority when most Canadians didn't vote for them -- and not just because I don't like the party. I agree that something needs to be changed, but two party would create a whole new set of problems, such as the aforementioned polarization and two-dimensional elections.

But if the people of Canada were like Texas, and just didn't care for gay people, then they could continue voting in politicians who would renew notwithstanding laws against gay people (for example).

This is one of the issues I have with the Notwithstanding Clause.

[cestlefun17]

Again, flawless in the mathematical sense. The lack of a respectable opposition party is the result of the people who support the opposition party, and the people the opposition party must cater to.
Again, fuck mathematics. Political systems have to prove themselves in reality, and if a system fares well in theory but fails due to practical concerns and people not behaving like perfect game theory automata, it fails

Any voting system is going to have its pros and cons. First-past-the-post induces us to adopt a two-party system, which some see as a pro, others see as a con. Any other voting system you propose will have cons to it, particularly quirks that can result in unfair and nonsensical outcomes.

Negative vote weights are an almost regular occurence in the Bundestag elections.

I had to look this up, but it proves my point. Apparently, winning more second-place votes can cause you to lose a seat to a lesser-preferred party. The German Federal Constitutional Court has mandated that Parliament change the system.

www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/elections/arithmetic/index.html

[Amaranth]

Sept 3, 2011 11:08:31 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

How so? With term limits, there is eventual turn-around in the government's membership. As opposed to, for example, the Senate where some Senators have been serving for decades. Why is the Presidency a poor example of this?

I swear, you take the most anal approach possible in an attempt to induce facepalming.

The same groups still maintain power in both Presidential and state politics. Not only do they tend to incur the same politics and policies, they often end up with legacy candidates. Bush v Gore is a pretty stellar example. A good number of candidates from the last few elections were second-or-third-generation politicians.

Clearly, term limits replace one guy in a long-term position with a legacy or partisan position instead.

As the Who would say, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Perhaps by "same old people" you mean "same old ideas"? This to me, is a positive thing,

Which leads to the same situation you're complaining about.

Again, flawless in the mathematical sense. The lack of a respectable opposition party is the result of the people who support the opposition party, and the people the opposition party must cater to.

Useless distinction. In fact, "mathematically perfect" is more or less accurate to any system. You're trying to apply a mathematical construct to justify the outcome you find favourable, which is no longer mathematics. You're applying the same human element, just where you see fit.

You've already exited mathematical perfection, so asserting it is just ridiculous.

There is unfortunately no other voting system that is mathematically sound. All other voting systems have flaws of their own, but in this instance we're talking mathematical flaws, flaws that can be manipulated to create completely nonsensical results.

Unlike the American system, where a lack of choice can manipulate the outcomes to absurd results.

Or the electoral college, which isn't even bound to the popular vote, nor to the votes of the constituants. We live in a nation where you can win the popular vote and lose the election in two ways.

Don't be ridiculous.

[Amaranth]

Sept 3, 2011 11:31:57 GMT -5 Mlle Antéchrist said:

Like I said earlier, I support alternative voting (e.g., ranked ballots) for this very reason.

My statistics prof actually demonstrated that ranked ballots had a mathematically better outcome than majority rules. I've favoured this for a long time.

[Yla]

Sept 3, 2011 11:35:34 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Again, flawless in the mathematical sense. The lack of a respectable opposition party is the result of the people who support the opposition party, and the people the opposition party must cater to.
Again, fuck mathematics. Political systems have to prove themselves in reality, and if a system fares well in theory but fails due to practical concerns and people not behaving like perfect game theory automata, it fails

Any voting system is going to have its pros and cons. First-past-the-post induces us to adopt a two-party system, which some see as a pro, others see as a con. Any other voting system you propose will have cons to it, particularly quirks that can result in unfair and nonsensical outcomes.

But they will have the pro to not favor the established parties this much. How grave of an issue this is depends on the situation. I don't want a 105-party splintered parliament. But I also don't want a two- or one-party parliament that makes it next to impossible for a newcomer to enter. Both can be considered degenerate.

FPTP has a bad record in the UK (the Liberal Democrats have a representation far below their share of votes. A voting system where 20% of the overall votes translate to 8% of the seats is a bad system in my book), and in the US (where any third parties have been driven from the scene).
Don't get me wrong, proportional representation isn't without its problems either. But I have to disagree with your claim that FPTP is a 'flawless' system, or in some way 'the best'.

The political scene of a country is determined by many factors, and the voting system is one of them.

Negative vote weights are an almost regular occurence in the Bundestag elections.

I had to look this up, but it proves my point. Apparently, winning more second-place votes can cause you to lose a seat to a lesser-preferred party. The German Federal Constitutional Court has mandated that Parliament change the system.

www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/elections/arithmetic/index.html

And they were lazy and promptly missed the deadline in June.

[cestlefun17]

The same groups still maintain power in both Presidential and state politics. Not only do they tend to incur the same politics and policies, they often end up with legacy candidates. Bush v Gore is a pretty stellar example. A good number of candidates from the last few elections were second-or-third-generation politicians.

It's not so much they incur the same politics and policies, but changes to them come slowly and after more deliberation. Obviously the Democratic Party's platform from 2010 is not the same as 1950.

You've already exited mathematical perfection, so asserting it is just ridiculous.

Certainly being mathematically flawless does not make it automatically the only correct option. It is, however, something that can be chalked up on the "pro" column. How important a "pro" or "con" is depends on how you personally prioritize the many different facets that make up a voting system.

My statistics prof actually demonstrated that ranked ballots had a mathematically better outcome than majority rules. I've favoured this for a long time.

What version of "ranked ballots"? There are hundreds of different voting systems which used ranked ballots, none of which are monotonic, anonymous, and neutral. All three are, in my opinion, of vital importance. Monotinicity means that if you rank Candidate A higher than Candidate B, it will never hurt Candidate A. And likewise, if you rank Candidate A lower than Candidate B, it will never benefit Candidate A. Many ranked voting systems are not monotonic and can result in elections where a lesser preferred candidate actually wins over more preferred candidates. Anonymity means every vote is treated equally and carries the same weight. Neutrality means each candidate is treated equally. And the system must be "decisive" meaning it selects only one winner.

Majority rules is the only system that satisfies all of these components. The downside, is that yes you have fewer candidates to choose from. The upside is that it is a fairer election. It depends on how you prioritize things.

Unlike the American system, where a lack of choice can manipulate the outcomes to absurd results.

By absurd, I mean a less-preferred candidate actually being able to win the election. While some of our elected politicians are themselves absurd, their elections were not: they received more votes than any other candidate.

[Yla]

Sept 3, 2011 13:55:19 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

What version of "ranked ballots"? There are hundreds of different voting systems which used ranked ballots, none of which are monotonic, anonymous, and neutral. All three are, in my opinion, of vital importance. Monotinicity means that if you rank Candidate A higher than Candidate B, it will never hurt Candidate A. And likewise, if you rank Candidate A lower than Candidate B, it will never benefit Candidate A. Many ranked voting systems are not monotonic and can result in elections where a lesser preferred candidate actually wins over more preferred candidates. Anonymity means every vote is treated equally and carries the same weight. Neutrality means each candidate is treated equally. And the system must be "decisive" meaning it selects only one winner.

I guess then FPTP is not anonymous, since as soon as a given district is won by a candidate, all votes from this district not for this candidate gain a weight of zero when determining the overall result.

Numerical example: A given district contains 5% of the voting population. In this district, votes are 40% for party A, 20% for party B, 25% for party C, and 15% for party D. If, hypothetically, 10% switch their vote from party C to party B in this district, one would expect party B to gain 0.5% nationwide at the cost of party C. But they don't, since party A wins this district anyway, and all other votes don't matter anymore.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Problem is, they often only received more votes because of strategic voting. A huge portion of people end up voting for someone who they do not like, and does not represent their interests, simply because he wasn't quite as bad as the other guy. As a result, policies that a huge portion of the population wishes to see changed remain stagnant for far longer than they need to.

[cestlefun17]

I guess then FPTP is not anonymous, since as soon as a given district is won by a candidate, all votes from this district not for this candidate gain a weight of zero when determining the overall result.

This does not describe anonymity. Any decisive election is going to result in a single winner, and therefore some people's preferred candidate is going to lose. Anonymity means that each vote is given equal weight. If there are 100 voters and 55 people vote for Candidate A and 45 people vote for Candidate B, Candidate A will always win no matter what the identity of those 55 people are. Anonymity is also mandated by the U.S. Constitution in all elections.

If you're talking about an electoral system where if 55% of people vote for Party A, 40% for Party B, and 5% for Party C, and those parties then get that percentage of power in the legislature, that is not a "decisive" election because more than one candidate wins.

FPTP should also not be confused with "Majority Rules," which is essentially FPTP but with only two candidates. It is only this form of FPTP that satisfies all conditions of fairness.

==

Numerical example: A given district contains 5% of the voting population. In this district, votes are 40% for party A, 20% for party B, 25% for party C, and 15% for party D. If, hypothetically, 10% switch their vote from party C to party B in this district, one would expect party B to gain 0.5% nationwide at the cost of party C. But they don't, since party A wins this district anyway, and all other votes don't matter anymore.

This is not how elections are conducted in the United States. Each Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential/Vice Presidential Elector Slate election is a separate and discrete first-past-the-post election. How people vote in District A has no bearing on the election in District B. What you're describing is not a FPTP system because it does not result in a single winner (rather it would result in 435 winners simultaneously to fill all the House seats).

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Do Americans not vote in individual Congressmen to fill the seats, based on electoral district?

[cestlefun17]

They do.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

All right. Your wording was tad confusing, leading me to question my memory in regard to American political practices.

I'm still curious as to how you'd deal with strategic voting, 2 dimensional politics and polarization in a 2 party system. I get that proportional representation is important to you (as it should be; ideally, all democratic systems should strive to obtain this), but I worry that such a system would only create an artificial sense of proportion, without truly representing what many of the people want.

It seems to me that alternative voting (when using one of the viable versions) combined with more than two parties could balance the two issues quite a bit more effectively than what you're suggesting.

[cestlefun17]

I'm still curious as to how you'd deal with strategic voting, 2 dimensional politics and polarization in a 2 party system. I get that proportional representation is important to you (as it should be; ideally, all democratic systems should strive to obtain this), but I worry that such a system would only create an artificial sense of proportion, without truly representing what many of the people want

There will always be strategic voting no matter what voting system is used. What exactly do you mean by polarization? Politics typically operate in two dimensions anyway (and seeing as most of the electorate is not as fascinated with politics as we may be, adding additional dimensions would make it even harder for the average person to keep up), third parties generally being assembled around a single issue or set of core issues, which if they ever gain any traction end up being incorporated into one of the two major party platforms.

It seems to me that alternative voting (when using one of the viable versions) combined with more than two parties could balance the two issues quite a bit more effectively than what you're suggesting.

The problem is that no other voting system is "fair" (i.e. is monotonic, anonymous, neutral, and decisive). Fairness, to me, is of the utmost importance, and I could never support a voting system that does not meet these rigid criteria. And even if we were to have multiple parties in Congress, you then have to worry about forming and maintaining coalitions; power can swing back and forth in-between elections if a certain minority party decides to switch affiliations. It is not desirable to me.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Sept 3, 2011 8:33:32 GMT -5 the sandman said:

"Every person's vote [should be] weighted according to how much they paid in taxes. Everyone gets a default value of one. So of [sic] that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing."

Out of all those quotes this one just stands out as the worst of all of them.

[itachirumon]

Sept 3, 2011 17:20:10 GMT -5 HarleyThomas1002 said:

Sept 3, 2011 8:33:32 GMT -5 the sandman said:

"Every person's vote [should be] weighted according to how much they paid in taxes. Everyone gets a default value of one. So of [sic] that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing."

Out of all those quotes this one just stands out as the worst of all of them.

Agreed, I saw that and could only manage rage face.

That being said I want to either send the Internet Spiders or hack their accounts and track down each one of those twisted evil bastards and give them a good skull-fucking. Hey, having their brains jammed with my dick couldn't make them any stupider than they already are, I'm guessing it could only help them.