Print

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

[kaijyuu]

Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

You have to be joking.  This took huge balls on his part re: the elections, because the states that it would get him favor in (west coast, New York) are all going to vote for him anyway, and the battleground states might not be so happy about this.

Right right, but I was referring to any political candidate going against their personal views for political reasons. Not necessarily Obama (and I've no reason to believe his personal views are against gay marriage either).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That, to me, would be the main advantage in switching to something like AV or runoff voting (they have it for the French presidential elections, which as a consequence are very popular and allow people to vote for whatever obscure candidate they like without splitting the vote... well, except in really weird situations).  You could make a protest vote while also keeping out whoever you don't like.

Which would be a great plan except for the part where the people in power would never allow it.

[Jervill]

Runoff voting is done in some major cities, such as Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Portland, ME.  So it's not an untried concept.

[mainiac]

That, to me, would be the main advantage in switching to something like AV or runoff voting (they have it for the French presidential elections, which as a consequence are very popular and allow people to vote for whatever obscure candidate they like without splitting the vote... well, except in really weird situations).  You could make a protest vote while also keeping out whoever you don't like.

Which would be a great plan except for the part where the people in power would never allow it.

Sort of like how the 17th amendment would never pass?

[Alexhans]

Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

You have to be joking.  This took huge balls on his part re: the elections, because the states that it would get him favor in (west coast, New York) are all going to vote for him anyway, and the battleground states might not be so happy about this.

I don't think so.   I think that they interpreted the move was adequate at this point. 

Do you all think Joe Biden's declaration (and the amount of reporting about it) is just a coincidence? 

They tested the waters and decided it was time.  I think that, overall.  It was a smart political move. 

And I still despise single issue voters.  Intensely.

[nenjin]

Do you all think Joe Biden's declaration (and the amount of reporting about it) is just a coincidence?

It's pretty typical for VPs to play the Bulldog on issues so president can appear to remain above the fray, judiciously weighing the opinions of the whole country. In this particular instance, I think it was an attempt to show liberal democrats the administration is still "blue" on social issues and reassure them. Except I think it had the opposite effect. It's telling that Biden, who gets treated like a walking punchline, looks like he's on the right side of the issue compared to Obama.

[Solifuge]

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

[Jervill]

Then come up with a viable third party candidate, for once.  People like Jesse Ventura don't come around very often.

[GlyphGryph]

One could just as easily argue he got two terms because not ENOUGH people voted for the Independents, you know.

[Jervill]

Point.  For the record, this is why I support runoff voting, or something better than first-past-the-post.

[Aqizzar]

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  I overheard my boss get a phoneback call from the RNC today.  He actually got testy with the poor schmuck, saying he'd given up being a Republican and might chip in a few bucks if Romney becomes conservative before the election.  I asked him if he was going to vote for Romney.  His exact answer was, "Of fucking course".  So, if you're a Democratic strategist, you'd be pretty keen on turning people off from third-party candidates that'd compete for the same ideological space as a sitting Democrat, because their chief competition probably isn't going to have the same concern.

[GlyphGryph]

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

[EveryZig]

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

It isn't circular, it is a spiral. It is true because enough other people believe it is, kind of like the reason why money is valuable.

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

What part is inferior other than the cost?

[GlyphGryph]

Well, there are two general philosophies behind election results - basing it around the most desired candidate, or the candidate desired by the most people, and approval voting is superior from both sides at selecting the candidate that best matches the criteria.

There are whole swathes of the Internet dedicated to running the numbers and scenarios around this stuff if you're interested, I worked through it all once to satisfy my curiosity and promptly forgot all the details. I could probably dig some stuff back up, though...

[lemon10]

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

But at the same time its strictly superior to what we have in the US.

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

We can't really have more then two parties in the united states, it doesn't really work with our voting system.
If a third party does come about, and is powerful enough to rally rival one of the two more powerful parties (for a significant duration), then it basically means that one of the parties is dead or dying.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there has ever really been three viable parties (if I am wrong, could someone point me at a period in american history where we had three viable parties for at least a dozen years)?