Print

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

[Graknorke]

But if everybody doesn't bother voting for small parties then it will just keep happening.

It's better to have a party that you agree with losing by a smaller margin than it is to have a party that you don't really agree with getting your vote.

[Frumple]

The primary worry, especially in winner-takes-all states, is that by giving your vote to a small party, the party that you strongly disagree with (instead of merely disagree, or at least disagree with less) is not only going to take the area election, but also control over your vote.

In a number of states (most of them, really) it doesn't matter how small the margin your agreed with party is, if it loses, you are ultimately counted as supporting the victor -- who may be the worse of the two dominate parties, to you. That's why there's the sentiment that you have to be over a certain size party before you genuinely matter... because frankly, insofar as the elections themselves go, that's absolutely true -- if you don' have the numbers, not only will your voice not be officially tallied once the votes are counted and the dust clears, it will be hijacked as nominal support for someone you blatantly disagree with.

It's why you see a lot of dialogue in US political discussions about voting for the lesser evil, because often you're trying to vote specifically to prevent what's considered a greater evil from getting control of your representation. I'll probably be voting Obama in the upcoming despite strong objections to a number of things he's done, because my state is winner-takes-all. I don't like Obama, really, but like hell I'm going to do something that makes it more likely for my vote to be counted for Romney -- and voting third party would do that, unfortunately.

We could seriously use some proportional shit or somethin' down here

[Reelya]

Instant run-off voting is a good compromise which gets rid of the "you're splitting the vote!" argument against voting for third parties, without having to create multi-seat electorates, or have lengthy run-off voting rounds.

In instant run-off, you rate candidates from best to worst (1,2,3,4...). If no candidates gets more than 50% of the primary votes (1's) then the candidate with the least 1's is eliminated and 100% of those votes are distributed to the next highest candidate on each person's ballot.

This is what they do here in Australia, and it means you can vote minor parties #1 and your "two party" preferred choice after a few minor parties, then put the ones you dislike at the bottom. The "two big parties" usually still get in, but at least your not actively penalized for considering a third choice.

[Nadaka]

Prior to 1967, it was legal for states to elect their US house representatives by different rules, at the moment they must be distributed with one representative per district by federal law.

That part of the law would need to be changed before any kind of proportional representation could be done in the house.

Removing state level apportionment by population of house seats would require a constitutional amendment.

So the simplest possible solution would be to rewrite the federal statute to allow/force each state to have a single district with multiple representatives that are apportioned by a party proportional vote.

This has the advantage that local political parties would also have a chance at federal representation, where a national level proportional house would most likely be limited to national parties. We could see Texas Secessionists elected for example.

At the national level, that and the apportionment of the electoral college really represent the only places we might be able to provide some party proportional elections without casting off the entire constitutional framework of US government.

[palsch]

As I've said in the past, I'm a big fan of IRV or Alternative Vote (AV) as it's known here in the UK, and actively campaigned for it in the (failed) referendum last year.

I also don't think it's an especially good idea in the US. Certainly not in isolation.

If you did a straight replacement of the current FPTP system with and AV system would see more votes for third parties, but not much actual change in their profile. You would not see many - if any - more seats won, and probably not much in the way of attention paid to the third parties in the first place.

For the USA, I'd say you want to spend more effort on growing third parties. That suggests to me one of two methods;

1) Move to a strongly proportional multi-member system. This is the only way I can imagine Green and/or Libertarians getting anywhere near the House. As Nadaka says, you would need some legal changes to make this work. My preference for such a system would be Single Transferable Vote (STV), which is just a multi-seat version of IRV/AV, and just as easy to use.

2) Move to a public finance system where parties are financially rewarded for their election performance, in partnership with a move to an AV system.

Basically you create a funding pool for elections, with a minimum amount distributed to each candidate. Candidates running for parties that entered the previous election are then eligible for more money from the pool related to the first choice votes they received in the previous election.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There actually already is some public election funding in the US with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, but its opt-in and not very good for third-parties.

[Levi]

I wasn't quite sure which thread this would fit in, but this one seems semi-appropriate.

We Are Now One Year Away From Global Riots, Complex Systems Theorists Say

Kind of interesting, although who knows if it'll turn out to be true. 

[Nadaka]

There actually already is some public election funding in the US with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, but its opt-in and not very good for third-parties.

Ah, FECA, one letter shy of the worst legislative acronym ever.

[Levi]

Ah, FECA, one letter shy of the worst legislative acronym ever.

Could be worse.  The World Health Organization committee on HIV drug resistance was almost called "WHO RES"

[palsch]

There actually already is some public election funding in the US with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, but its opt-in and not very good for third-parties.

From that;

The Presidential nominee of each major party (one whose candidate received more than 25% of the vote in the previous election) may become eligible for a public grant of $81.78 million (if the election were held in 2007).

The idea here would to abolish that threshold and instead have a single pool of, say, $100 million that is divided up by the percentage that party took in the previous election, modified by some equalising factor. I'd actually have it favour smaller parties.

Let's say we have a first-choice vote breakdown like this;

A - 30%
B - 25%
C - 15%
D - 15%
E - 10%
F - 5%

I'd then do a finance split along these lines;

A - 25%
B - 22.5%
C - 15%
D - 15%
E - 12.5%
F - 10%

Now personally I'd be all for equally funding all parties that had showed any standing (call it 5%) and saying that grant is the only money they can spend. The idea behind this is much less rewarding the parties themselves (given this scenario I would still allow small personal donations to candidates of up to $250 from individuals only - hey, this already likely requires a constitutional amendment, why not go all the way) and more offering an incentive to voters to vote for small parties they would like to see grow as a first preference, while giving a stronger meaning to first preference votes than usually exists under the proposed UK AV or existing Australian IRV systems.


In protest news, people been following the Chicago teacher strike? Teachers' unions tend to be the first thrown under the bus, but this looks like a good cause to me.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/egyptians-angry-film-scale-u-embassy-walls-163506344.html

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others," the U.S. embassy said in its statement.

At this, I rage. It also seems that my criticism in the comments section are getting deleted, even though I am using no prohibited language.

[Scelly9]

Wow. That's just fucking stupid.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

At this, I rage. It also seems that my criticism in the comments section are getting deleted, even though I am using no prohibited language.

Who cares. Reading the comments section just shows a bunch of birther Obamer-is-a-Merslim neocon retards saying things along the line of "Ban the Koran in the US" and "If Obama get elected president, we're likely to see 'In Allah We Trust' on our bills."

Spoiler: Or this choice one (click to show/hide)

SN, Fox News is one of America's only remaining objective news sources nowadays. If you want a warped view, try watching CNN (Communist News Network) or read the New York Lies, now THAT is entertainment.

[Techhead]

Spoiler: Or this choice one (click to show/hide)

SN, Fox News is one of America's only remaining objective news sources nowadays. If you want a warped view, try watching CNN (Communist News Network) or read the New York Lies, now THAT is entertainment.

I'm surprised he didn't mention the Modern Socialist News Broadcasting Channel.

[Aqizzar]

You've perhaps heard of the big UBS Swiss banking crackdowns the IRS was on about for the last year or so?  It all started in 2005, and picked up steam in 2007 when a man named Bradley Birkenfeld came out of UBS to tell the IRS what was going on.  For his service to his country, he was convicted of fraud in 2010, and was just recently released on good behavior after 31 of 40 months.

The IRS also got around to awarding him a hundred million dollars as a reward for his cooperation.

Okay, so it was a few years late and really fucked up the guy's middle age, but at least he'll never have to worry about looking for a job again.  The IRS is actually incredibly tight-lipped because they're pretty much required to be by law, but they're hoping that other people will take this as a signal that spilling the beans on major tax fraud is actually worthwhile beyond feeling good about yourself.  At least the money anyway, whether you'll spend a few years in prison first is a different question.

The most telling part for me is down in the details, about the IRS' "whistleblower" office.  The IRS is the most populous federal agency outside of the military and for good reason, they have a very labor intensive job.  Their whistleblower office has a staff of eighteen people.  You do the math.