Gary Johnson Debates Obama and Romney Live

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on October 15, 2012, 07:57:19 PM

Quote from: Topazan on October 15, 2012, 06:12:34 PM

On the matter of parties, what I was wondering is whether or not primary voting would still be necessary. There would be no disadvantage to one party running multiple candidates. There could be both party-wide campaigning (vote for a member of our party) and individual campaigning (vote for me specifically). Then again, I suppose they would still need to come to some agreement about which group of candidates they endorse.

With any luck, it might loosen the hold the parties have on the candidates.

that it would do

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Topazan on October 15, 2012, 06:12:34 PM

On the matter of parties, what I was wondering is whether or not primary voting would still be necessary. There would be no disadvantage to one party running multiple candidates. There could be both party-wide campaigning (vote for a member of our party) and individual campaigning (vote for me specifically). Then again, I suppose they would still need to come to some agreement about which group of candidates they endorse.

With any luck, it might loosen the hold the parties have on the candidates.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: 420 on October 15, 2012, 05:56:29 PM

approval voting woudln't help that

I don't know. I'm glad you do.

Topazan

sr. member

Activity: 354

Merit: 250

Quote from: 420 on October 15, 2012, 05:56:29 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on October 15, 2012, 12:56:59 AM

Quote from: Topazan on October 15, 2012, 12:04:32 AM

That's what I've read. It certainly reduces the spoiler effect, greatly, but since one candidate can knock another one to a lower level, there's still the potential for similar candidates to inadvertently sabotage each other.

I don't have a full understanding of the math involved, but that's what I read. One of these days I need to run some simulations of my own.

You know, I wonder what effect approval voting would have on parties. One of the functions of parties in the current system, the primaries, would be rendered unnecessary.

I'm sure it would mean that campaigns were more positive than negative since it would be more advantageous to make sure your own views and opinions got out there than to spend time and money tearing down a dozen other candidates.

approval voting woudln't help that

Why wouldn't it?

On the matter of parties, what I was wondering is whether or not primary voting would still be necessary. There would be no disadvantage to one party running multiple candidates. There could be both party-wide campaigning (vote for a member of our party) and individual campaigning (vote for me specifically). Then again, I suppose they would still need to come to some agreement about which group of candidates they endorse.

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on October 15, 2012, 12:56:59 AM

Quote from: Topazan on October 15, 2012, 12:04:32 AM

That's what I've read. It certainly reduces the spoiler effect, greatly, but since one candidate can knock another one to a lower level, there's still the potential for similar candidates to inadvertently sabotage each other.

I don't have a full understanding of the math involved, but that's what I read. One of these days I need to run some simulations of my own.

You know, I wonder what effect approval voting would have on parties. One of the functions of parties in the current system, the primaries, would be rendered unnecessary.

I'm sure it would mean that campaigns were more positive than negative since it would be more advantageous to make sure your own views and opinions got out there than to spend time and money tearing down a dozen other candidates.

approval voting woudln't help that

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Topazan on October 15, 2012, 12:04:32 AM

That's what I've read. It certainly reduces the spoiler effect, greatly, but since one candidate can knock another one to a lower level, there's still the potential for similar candidates to inadvertently sabotage each other.

I don't have a full understanding of the math involved, but that's what I read. One of these days I need to run some simulations of my own.

You know, I wonder what effect approval voting would have on parties. One of the functions of parties in the current system, the primaries, would be rendered unnecessary.

I'm sure it would mean that campaigns were more positive than negative since it would be more advantageous to make sure your own views and opinions got out there than to spend time and money tearing down a dozen other candidates.

Topazan

sr. member

Activity: 354

Merit: 250

That's what I've read. It certainly reduces the spoiler effect, greatly, but since one candidate can knock another one to a lower level, there's still the potential for similar candidates to inadvertently sabotage each other.

I don't have a full understanding of the math involved, but that's what I read. One of these days I need to run some simulations of my own.

You know, I wonder what effect approval voting would have on parties. One of the functions of parties in the current system, the primaries, would be rendered unnecessary.

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Topazan on October 12, 2012, 02:08:10 PM

You know, after doing some research on the various systems, I think I've been convinced to support approval voting.

I've seen that instant run-off doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, and approval voting is easier to understand and closer to what we have now.

how does it not eliminate spoiler effect...

Topazan

sr. member

Activity: 354

Merit: 250

You know, after doing some research on the various systems, I think I've been convinced to support approval voting.

I've seen that instant run-off doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, and approval voting is easier to understand and closer to what we have now.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: 420 on October 11, 2012, 06:04:48 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on October 11, 2012, 10:55:06 AM

Quote from: 420 on October 11, 2012, 12:55:04 AM

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

haha, if thats true, they'll show how it wouldn't work then people wouldn't ever go for the idea

Wait, what? Who but you said anything about sharing power?

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on October 11, 2012, 10:55:06 AM

Quote from: 420 on October 11, 2012, 12:55:04 AM

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

haha, if thats true, they'll show how it wouldn't work then people wouldn't ever go for the idea

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: 420 on October 11, 2012, 12:55:04 AM

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

another good vid to fix gerrymandering, ft. bitcoins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Maybe just go to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: 420 on October 10, 2012, 01:16:23 AM

Quote from: Topazan on October 09, 2012, 08:39:57 PM

Quote from: 420 on October 08, 2012, 04:20:25 AM

What we need is not to tout one person to get in there but to tout a fudnamental change to the system

such as iniatiate alternative voting, watch this fantastic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Wow, that's an awesome explanation. I've been saying for years that we need instant run-off voting. I even wrote to my state representatives about it, but I got no response.

yeah i better start calling it instant runoff voting

keep my names correct

a similar video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM

Randomly select 10,000 people from the population and ask them who they choose. You have your answer. The hard part is getting a random sample. The hard part for voting is going to the voting station.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: 420 on October 11, 2012, 12:03:45 AM

so saying that someone who was a bunch of people's second choice but not as many's first choice would be elected and violate these principles?

Yes. Which is not to say that it's necessarily a dealbreaker. I should have included the link the the page(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system

There are other systems too. Approval voting just ticks the right boxes for me.

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on October 10, 2012, 11:42:42 PM

Quote from: 420 on October 10, 2012, 11:24:54 PM

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

No, I mean objectively that in a good percentage of cases, it results in the selection of the candidate that not the most favored choice of all concerned. It's a perverse outcome but it's pretty well known. I think there is some good info on Wikipedia also. In particular, it has this (amongst others) to say about IRV:

The participation criterion states that "the best way to help a candidate win must not be to abstain".[34] IRV does not meet this criterion: in some cases, the voter's preferred candidate can be best helped if the voter does not vote at all.

and

The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". It is incompatible with the later-no-harm criterion, so IRV does not meet this criterion.

I'd recommend reading around the various pages on the voting systems. It's fascinating reading (if you're that way inclined) and quite possibly could produce an epiphany about the relation of the governers to the governed.

so saying that someone who was a bunch of people's second choice but not as many's first choice would be elected and violate these principles?

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 2151

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: 420 on October 10, 2012, 11:24:54 PM

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

No, I mean objectively that in a good percentage of cases, it results in the selection of the candidate that not the most favored choice of all concerned. It's a perverse outcome but it's pretty well known. I think there is some good info on Wikipedia also. In particular, it has this (amongst others) to say about IRV:

The participation criterion states that "the best way to help a candidate win must not be to abstain".[34] IRV does not meet this criterion: in some cases, the voter's preferred candidate can be best helped if the voter does not vote at all.

and

The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". It is incompatible with the later-no-harm criterion, so IRV does not meet this criterion.

I'd recommend reading around the various pages on the voting systems. It's fascinating reading (if you're that way inclined) and quite possibly could produce an epiphany about the relation of the governers to the governed.

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Richy_T on October 10, 2012, 11:11:53 PM

Quote from: 420 on October 10, 2012, 10:30:11 PM

i see instant runoff as having all of the benefits of that plus more

vote in order of whoever u want, but u can just leave off who u dont like or vote who you least like the lowest number

1. gary johnson
2. rand paul
3. gill stein
4. Governator
5. mitt romney
6....
7....
8....
..
.
55. turtle in a bathtub
56. Obama

And you end up with Obama (some of the time). The problems with instant runoff are well documented. It is an improvement on first-past-the-post but still ends up with poor selections in quite a large number of cases. It does tick the "one man, one vote" box which is a stumbling point for a lot of people who oppose approval voting. Approval voting does that sometimes as well but it seems as if there's always going to be problems with selecting a very few people to represent a large number. (Though it often applies in other cases such as choosing where to eat). Marting Gardner has an interesting article on it though I have only ever seen it in dead tree form.

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

Topic: Gary Johnson Debates Obama and Romney Live (Read 3666 times)