Alternative Voting Systems

[Magic Man]

Recently I was made aware of alternative voting systems. There are several variations, but the idea is to get people to vote for the candidate they really like rather than the lesser of two evils.

One variation that I think makes a lot of sense works like this:

Imagine an election in which there are three candidates: Andrew, Brian and Catherine. There are 100 voters and they vote as follows (third preferences are omitted):
# 30 voters 6 voters 9 voters 7 voters 28 voters 20 voters 1st Andrew Andrew Brian Brian Catherine Catherine 2nd Brian Catherine Andrew Catherine Brian Andrew 1. To begin the count first preferences are counted, and the tallies stand at:

• Andrew: 36
• Brian: 16
• Catherine: 48

2. No candidate has an absolute majority of votes (this would be 51), so the two candidates with most votes proceed to a second round and Brian, who has the fewest votes, is excluded. 9 of Brian's supporters have given Andrew as their second preference, and 7 have given Catherine as their second preference, so these votes transfer to Andrew and Catherine respectively. The tallies then become:

• Andrew: 45
• Catherine: 55

Result: Catherine has the most votes so is declared the winner.

Wiki

This is called contingent voting. The general idea is you vote for the candidate you really want as your first preference, but if that candidate is Ron Paul and has no hope of actually winning, at least you're not giving your vote to Bush or Obama or whichever top-two candidate you hate.

I love the idea. I think it would really get people to start voting for third parties, and the top two would have a lot more competition to worry about.

What do you all think?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like the Athenian method.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's an improvement, but I'd like to see voting made less costly & inconvenient first.

Another system I'd like for representation is the "at large" method. It's based upon representing a group of voters who are defined
by a shared agenda, rather than a shared voting district. We cannot elect a 3rd party candidate to our state legislature, since the
Dems & Repubs have every such district sewn up. But suppose 5% of the voters across the state favored Bob Slithertarian. Even
though he won no individual district, he would have enuf votes to win office.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It would be a start if we had a basic aptitude test to get a voter registration card.

"Print your name"

 

[xkatz]

Why not have an option to not vote at all. I find it very inconvenient I have to choose people to represent me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why not have an option to vote at all. I find it very inconvenient I have to choose people to represent me.

 

[Engyo]

Take that a step farther: establish a party and a platform. During the primaries, each party and platform gets a certain percentage of the vote. Say the Demublicans get 34%, the Repubocrats get 29%, the Slithertarians get 18%, the Blue/Yellows get 12%, etc.

Then divvy up the seats in the legislative body by those percentages. If there are 100 seats, then the Demublicans get to seat 34 representatives, the Repubocrats get to seat 29 representatives, the Slithertarians get to seat 18 representatives, etc.

During the general election, each party elects that number of representatives from within it's own ranks. So if you are a registered Repubocrat, you would be voting for 29 representatives out of whatever slate your party fields for those seats.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it's a very interesting idea. In the original example, Catherine won in both rounds. But to illustrate how this voting system is unique, I think it would be better to have Andrew win in the second round, just for the purposes of the example. This would show how in this voting system, Andrew or Brian would win even when voters are split between them.

 

[Magic Man]

I think it's a very interesting idea. In the original example, Catherine won in both rounds. But to illustrate how this voting system is unique, I think it would be better to have Andrew win in the second round, just for the purposes of the example. This would show how in this voting system, Andrew or Brian would win even when voters are split between them.

Yeah, that's true. What I mainly like about it is just that it gives you a safety net. You're never "throwing your vote away".

 

[xkatz]

Ever heard of sarcasm, pal?

 

[Thief]

We should vote ceo's in and out of office.

Don't like your power bill? water bill? mortgage rates?
Vote'm out.

 

[.lava]

i like Swedish way ..

Voting
Unlike in many countries where voters chose from a list of candidates or parties, each party in Sweden has separate ballot papers. The ballot papers must be identical in size and material, and have different colors depending on the type of election: yellow for Riksdag elections, blue for county council elections and white for municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament.
Swedish voters can choose between three different types of ballot papers. The party ballot paper has simply the name of a political party printed on the front and is blank on the back. This ballot is used when a voter wishes to vote for a particular party, but does not wish to give preference to a particular candidate. The name ballot paper has a party name followed by a list of candidates (which can continue on the other side). A voter using this ballot can choose (but is not required) to cast a personal vote by entering a mark next to a particular candidate, in addition to voting for their political party. Alternatively, a voter can take a blank ballot paper and write a party name on it. [2]

Elections in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

[LuisDantas]

Brazilian elections are run exactly that way (edit: as described in the OP, I mean). I can't say it works all that well.

There are other systems that I would like to see implemented, however. For instance, one where you vote for a name and against another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In our last provincial election, we had a referendum on whether to implement Mixed Member Proportional voting. I thought it would be a good idea, but the motion was defeated, as was a Single Transferable Vote system in British Columbia recently.

 

[Wandered Off]

I like the idea, but because it gives thirds a more level playing field, the major parties will fight it with all their resources. For that reason, I don't see it gaining traction here for some time, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Engyo]

Ever heard of sarcasm, pal?

I've found it valuable to use the [/sarcasm] tags just to make sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

We should vote ceo's in and out of office.

Don't like your power bill? water bill? mortgage rates?
Vote'm out.

You sometimes can! Get involved in shareholder meetings.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think we should all have an anarcho-syndicalist commune; we'll take it in turns, to act as a sort of "executive officer for the week". But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major ....

 

[Tarheeler]

Take that a step farther: establish a party and a platform. During the primaries, each party and platform gets a certain percentage of the vote. Say the Demublicans get 34%, the Repubocrats get 29%, the Slithertarians get 18%, the Blue/Yellows get 12%, etc.

Then divvy up the seats in the legislative body by those percentages. If there are 100 seats, then the Demublicans get to seat 34 representatives, the Repubocrats get to seat 29 representatives, the Slithertarians get to seat 18 representatives, etc.

During the general election, each party elects that number of representatives from within it's own ranks. So if you are a registered Repubocrat, you would be voting for 29 representatives out of whatever slate your party fields for those seats.

I think that eliminating parties would be the best bet, but that's not likely to happen.
And, as long as they exist, I don't think the any new system of voting will be any more effective than the system we currently use. Most people vote for a party regardless of the person actually running, and contingent voting will be no different.

I often think that a proportional-type system, like Engyo has suggested, would be most effective. People would be free to vote by party first, and then for the individuals. As long as a third party can generate a small percent of the populations support, then they can seat members.

Proportional systems do have their advantages, but I've always wondered how it would work in the US. It was tried in the early and mid-20th, but mainly in the cities and municipalities. A lot of problems began when non-mainstream parties began to win seats. I wonder how most would react today if the Socialist or Communist party won a fair percentage of seats?

 

[Magic Man]

I like the idea, but because it gives thirds a more level playing field, the major parties will fight it with all their resources. For that reason, I don't see it gaining traction here for some time, but I hope I'm wrong.

Minnesota is already using a system like this, although I don't know whether it's the one exactly like the OP, but it's similar. But you are certainly right that the major parties will fight it tooth and nail.