Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I think America should modify it's voting system with 'negative votes' becoming an option to facilitate additional moderate parties.

Has the internet taught us nothing? Sure you'd get higher voter turn out by allowing people to just be negative....but is that really how we want to determine POTUS? By who America hates least?

[WealthyRadish]

I think America should modify it's voting system with 'negative votes' becoming an option to facilitate additional moderate parties.

Why not just do proportional representation?

It'd also be nice since removing the congressional districts would prevent gerrymandering (not that it'd have any effect in proportional representation anyway), and we could get rid of the minor imprecision with the electoral college.

But I think the more realistically possible solution (without an anti-Trump junta seizing power and burning the constitution) would be something like Australia's preferential voting.

[Culise]

I think America should modify it's voting system with 'negative votes' becoming an option to facilitate additional moderate parties.

Has the internet taught us nothing? Sure you'd get higher voter turn out by allowing people to just be negative....but is that really how we want to determine POTUS? By who America hates least?

To be fair, that doesn't feel far off from a sizeable bloc of voters right now: that is, the "anyone but X" votes.  More generally, various schemes of preferential voting work well enough in many jurisdictions, even including some local city/town elections in the US itself.  Voting reform is not the magic bullet many people seem to see it as, but I'm not certain it's a horrible idea.

[mainiac]

But I think the more realistically possible solution (without an anti-Trump junta seizing power and burning the constitution) would be something like Australia's preferential voting.

Personally I think that proportional is a lot simpler.

[smjjames]

I think America should modify it's voting system with 'negative votes' becoming an option to facilitate additional moderate parties.

Individuals can choose to make their one vote either for one candidate or against one candidate. This allows moderate people to vote against extremism they currently oppose without supporting the (to-them) less-evil extremism that may end up screwing them over and gives them a place for their voice if they are not educated on the moderates' policies due to limited small-party exposure/ campaigning. In this manner the corrupt two-party system where you are forced to choose the lesser of two evils (turd sandwich or giant douche) is hamstrung. Third-party moderate candidates would currently have an excellent chance to unify the country under a moderate government and far-wing politics would be very risky.

Also, candidates accumulating negative vote totals are severely punished.

I can see that working as well as like/unlike systems do in various places on the Internet. Besides, isn't a vote for someone the same thing as a negative vote for everybody else?

[Loud Whispers]

I think Trump plans to pull a Brexit -- seem so rediculous that nobody puts in the effort to stop it until too late.

This post triggered me so much I am become ascended trigger

Literally everyone tried stopping Brexit, you want the Irish Treaty of Nice referendum, where all the major Irish parties assumed the people would pass the EU Treaty as before so didn't bother campaigning at all

I can see that working as well as like/unlike systems do in various places on the Internet. Besides, isn't a vote for someone the same thing as a negative vote for everybody else?

No, just because you support one party does not mean you oppose all others - it would be interesting for example if you had multiple votes

Also, candidates accumulating negative vote totals are severely punished.

I quite like the idea of a government whose politicians are routinely French rev'd lol

[mainiac]

I can see that working as well as like/unlike systems do in various places on the Internet. Besides, isn't a vote for someone the same thing as a negative vote for everybody else?

Yes, although the reverse isn't true.

So what if for instance it was Trump, Cruz, Sanders and Clinton running?  A lot of people feel the same way about Cruz and Trump and feel the same way about Clinton and Sanders.  They are forced to guess about whether it's better to upvote their favorite or downvote the one they dislike who looks most likely to win.

[martinuzz]

I quite like the idea of a government whose politicians are routinely French rev'd lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eobuu-IexvI

All May needs is to dye her hair red

[Reelya]

"Negative votes" as stated would not prevent the Spoiler Effect. e.g. if a centre-right voter negative-voted a far-right candidate, that's one more vote, effectively, for the left side of things, and vice versa. Additionally, if you positive-vote your side, your side is up one vote, but if you negative-vote your side, you're down one vote. Which is a net difference of two votes, not one. So you're actually harming your side by even turning up. This really does nothing to help third parties grow.

IRV (instant run-off voting) is a good simple system that eliminates the spoiler effect completely. This helps small parties to run candidates without being attacked by their own "side".

MMP (Mixed member proportional) voting takes all the "loser" votes, and gives them additional members in the legislature to make things proportional. e.g. if the greens got 10% of the vote in every single seat, then they get extra members such that they get 10% of the representatives in the legislature. As such, it gives a proportional voice to all the "losers". It therefore makes gerrymandering completely pointless.

Anyway, even without MMP, you can get rid of gerrymandering by basically "automating" the process. Have some arbitrary set of criteria for what counts as a better set of borders. e.g. add together variance of population sizes and length of borders (shortest is best), and the lower that number the "better" the plan is. A number of states already use rules like this to determine which electoral map is the best.

[WealthyRadish]

But I think the more realistically possible solution (without an anti-Trump junta seizing power and burning the constitution) would be something like Australia's preferential voting.

Personally I think that proportional is a lot simpler.

It's more that a proportional system would probably need a massive constitutional amendment, while preferential voting could maybe squeak by at the state level, get a supreme court ruling saying it's ok, and then get passed into federal law.

[mainiac]

So is it preferential at the state level?  Preferential nationwide?  What if different names appear on different ballots nationally?  You could find workarounds to these problems but you could also find workarounds at the state level for proportionality problems.

[Loud Whispers]

I quite like the idea of a government whose politicians are routinely French rev'd lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eobuu-IexvI
All May needs is to dye her hair red

The only Alive you're allowed to post in Ameripol thread is American Mcgee's, for maximum freedom

[mainiac]

Maybe I should install this twitter thingie. Looks fun.

[Crashmaster]

"Negative votes" as stated would not prevent the Spoiler Effect. e.g. if a centre-right voter negative-voted a far-right candidate, that's one more vote, effectively, for the left side of things, and vice versa. Additionally, if you positive-vote your side, your side is up one vote, but if you negative-vote your side, you're down one vote. Which is a net difference of two votes, not one. So you're actually harming your side by even turning up. This really does nothing to help third parties grow.

While I'm not trying to promote anything, I find this quote illogical; If the far-right offends the center-right enough to 'negative vote' them I would expect that to drive them to straight-up vote left or not at all given no other choices. If you negative vote your own side, it is not your side and therefore you are not loosing a vote.

[mainiac]

If it's only two candidates, it gives you nothing you dont get from what we have now.  If it's more then three candidates, it's not about sides anymore.

The only situation this makes any sense is if you have three candidates and two are similar to each other.  But we already have a system for that, it's called primaries.