• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A simple solution to the "third party" problem.

Tricky

Briefly immortal
Tricky
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
43,750
Location
The Group W Bench
There has been some excellent discussion here about the affect that third (and fourth etc.) parties have had on elections, especially in the US. I propose a simple solution which would cost virtuallly nothing and reflect the will of the people even more. In addition, it would encourage the rise of third parties.

Instead of a vote, have the ballot be a ranked approval list. You list your first choice, then your second then more if needed. If no candidate got a majority of votes, simply go to the "second choices" of those who didn't give either of the two highest polling candidates their first vote. You wouldn't have to hold an expensive run-off. It seems so obvious. All the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 or Ross Perot in his campaigns could simply say, "this is my first choice, but if he doesn't get it...". This would greatly encourage multiple parties by making politicians woo them for their "second choice".

I know the hurdles would be tremendous, considering that many would fight the change in the rules. But on what ground could they stand? How would you argue against such a system? I'm curious. Let me know what you think.
 
Preferential voting

Was that what you were looking for?

It's a good system to have. Marginal parties that have no hope in heck of getting into Parliament can use their preferences to get their more moderate policies possibly pushed through. But it doesn't give them enough power to be ratbags about it.

But, for all I know, you have something similar in the US already.
 
There are several refinements on it too.

1) Optional Preferential, for those who can't count past 1.
2) Ticketed Preferential, useful when there are 60 or so candidates, eg, for our Senate system. The parties can nominate how they think you should vote. If you agree with their preference, you just put the number 1 under their name, and the vote is assumed to be in line with what they have told the electoral commission.

If you really want to fill in the numbers 1 to 60, like I do, you can still do that too.
 
So how does one convince the people in power to dramaticaly change the system so that they have less power?
 
a_unique_person said:
There are several refinements on it too.

1) Optional Preferential, for those who can't count past 1.
2) Ticketed Preferential, useful when there are 60 or so candidates, eg, for our Senate system. The parties can nominate how they think you should vote. If you agree with their preference, you just put the number 1 under their name, and the vote is assumed to be in line with what they have told the electoral commission.

If you really want to fill in the numbers 1 to 60, like I do, you can still do that too.
Click to expand...
1 to 60?! Huh! 1 to 95 or so in our state, last time we went to the polls! The ballot paper was big enough to sleep under in the park.
 
Yeah, and we could give away concession prizes to the runners up. Seriously though, this is America, we have winners and we have losers. We’ve got to stop trying to make everyone feel good about themselves. It's always been about two competing philosophies, no matter what the parties were called.
 
Ladewig said:
So how does one convince the people in power to dramaticaly change the system so that they have less power?
Click to expand...
First-past-the-post voting means that only the votes for the winning candidate count - the rest may just have well not turned up. Preferential voting means that EVERYBODYS' vote counts, even if you didn't get your first choice of candidate.

Of course, one of the "downsides" is that preferential voting may elect a candidate who didn't actually have a majority on the first count. For example, candidates A, B and C. Primary vote: A: 45%, B: 40%, C: 15%. C is not elected, but if all C's preferences go to B, the final result is A: 45%, B:55%. The famous "preference swing", and why it is important for the major parties to seriously court and work with the minor parties.
 
peptoabysmal said:
Yeah, and we could give away concession prizes to the runners up. Seriously though, this is America, we have winners and we have losers. We’ve got to stop trying to make everyone feel good about themselves. It's always been about two competing philosophies, no matter what the parties were called.
Click to expand...

That is the illusion that is generated. In actual practice, you have two parties that a very similar, and no alternatives with any sort of viability. You have the ludicrous situation where Ralph Nader is criticised for exercising his democratic right to run for office.
 
I always considered that it is part of the game in the society for people to know who were the winners and who were the losers.

The reason why I would strongly object to Tricky's idea is because it is based on the notion of the "lost vote".

I observe this trend when people are talking about Ralph Nader for example or for the small parties here in Greece--we have elections in two weeks and everybody is talking about the lost votes.

Talking about the lost vote is the most undemocratic thing that exists. Lost votes do not exist, every vote has its own value.So, in the frame of this logic I consider Tricky's suggestion very undemocratic for the reasons explained above.
 
Cleopatra said:
So, in the frame of this logic I consider Tricky's suggestion very undemocratic for the reasons explained above.
Click to expand...
Undemocratic???:confused:
How can it be undemocratic, if it is not excluding anyone, instead it is leting the voter opnion with a bigger weight than before.

I think it is a good ideia, if they used that in france, the voters wouldn't have to protest against themselves for having Le Pen in the runoffs.
 
Cleopatra said:
I always considered that it is part of the game in the society for people to know who were the winners and who were the losers.

The reason why I would strongly object to Tricky's idea is because it is based on the notion of the "lost vote".

I observe this trend when people are talking about Ralph Nader for example or for the small parties here in Greece--we have elections in two weeks and everybody is talking about the lost votes.

Talking about the lost vote is the most undemocratic thing that exists. Lost votes do not exist, every vote has its own value.So, in the frame of this logic I consider Tricky's suggestion very undemocratic for the reasons explained above.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this. My view is that Tricky's proposal would make people more likely to vote for their preferred candidate as it very effectively counters the "lost vote" argument. Consider an election with three parties A and B are the established parties while C has a lot in common with B but has disagreements in particular areas. In a particular seat, A and B both have support from about 40% of the voters and C 20%.

Under a first past the post system, any votes for C are likely to be "lost". Indeed there is pressure for C voters to switch to B as their preferred choice from the two big parties to avoid their least preferred option, A, winning.

With a single transferrable vote, they can vote for C and express a second preference for B. This allows them to vote for the party they actually want to win, instead of having an incentive to vote against a party they don't want.
 
peptoabysmal said:
Yeah, and we could give away concession prizes to the runners up. Seriously though, this is America, we have winners and we have losers. We’ve got to stop trying to make everyone feel good about themselves. It's always been about two competing philosophies, no matter what the parties were called.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting that of ALL the issues that afftect a country, they can be fairly represented by just TWO political parties? Just like a Western movie eh, the good guys wear white, the bad guys wear black.

As has been pointed out already, the preferential voting system allows citizens to vote for a specific policy of a minor party without throwing his vote away as would happen in a first past the post style election.

In Australia, we have a number of political parties that -- osensibly at least -- cover a range of issues. The major parties are:

- Liberal (conservatives)
- Labor (working party)
- Nationals (country party)

the minors are:

- The Greens (focussing on environmental issues)
- Democrats (moderates)
- One Nation (some would say Neo White Australia)

So, if (say) the Greens are opposed to the building of a new dam that will adversely impact some pristine forrest, I can vote for them during an election while selecting a major party as my second preference, so I've effectively made my voice heard on two different issues. With my first preference I've delivered the message that I don't want to see that dam built, and with my second preference I've said which party I wish to see run the country. The major parties take notice of the primary vote each of the minor parties receives, so they may see that building that dam might get them kicked out at the next election.

As well as these parties, a candidate may stand as an "independent", he or she is affiliated with NO political party. Believe it or not, we regularly have independents in both the state and federal parliaments, and an independent can become a powerful political force. Quite a few years ago, two independents: Senator Brian Harradine and another who's name escapes me at the moment held the balance of power at the federal level.

[edited to change "it" to "if" and add:]

I may have forgotten a party or two, but I can't think of any others at the moment.
 
Jaggy Bunnet my disagreement is exactly this: There is not such a thing as a lost vote. All votes count.

In the example you brought although the party C has many similarities to party B doesn't make them identical. Voters who prefer C to B have serious reasons. Those disagreements are of importance to them otherwise they would prefer B.

Votes for party C even if C will not be elected count as an active support of some citizens who live in the society for the ideas that C represents.

If you consider the votes for C lost it is as if you will admit that only the votes for A and B have some essence and power this is what I call the idea of the lost vote undemocratic. In democracies every vote has a value, it records an opinion and many votes gathered together record a tendancy in the society.Why eliminate the various tendancies in a society and record only two?
 
Cleopatra said:
Jaggy Bunnet my disagreement is exactly this: There is not such a thing as a lost vote. All votes count.

In the example you brought although the party C has many similarities to party B doesn't make them identical. Voters who prefer C to B have serious reasons. Those disagreements are of importance to them otherwise they would prefer B.

Votes for party C even if C will not be elected count as an active support of some citizens who live in the society for the ideas that C represents.

If you consider the votes for C lost it is as if you will admit that only the votes for A and B have some essence and power this is what I call the idea of the lost vote undemocratic. In democracies every vote has a value, it records an opinion and many votes gathered together record a tendancy in the society.Why eliminate the various tendancies in a society and record only two?
Click to expand...

You would not record only two, you would record all of the first preference votes for all of the parties exactly as you do under a first past the post system. This means they can express their support for C as opposed to B. In a first past the post system this would be the end of it and they may end up with A being elected.

In addition to that under a transferrable vote system, you then give the opportunity to the voters who have voted for an unsuccessful candidate, in this case C, the opportunity to express their view as to which of the remaining candidates they would prefer to see elected. This then allows them to select B as opposed to A.

As far as I can see transferrable voting gives more power to the voter and makes them more likely to give their first preference to the party they actually want to win compared to first past the post.
 
Cleopatra said:
Jaggy Bunnet my disagreement is exactly this: There is not such a thing as a lost vote. All votes count.

In the example you brought although the party C has many similarities to party B doesn't make them identical. Voters who prefer C to B have serious reasons. Those disagreements are of importance to them otherwise they would prefer B.

Votes for party C even if C will not be elected count as an active support of some citizens who live in the society for the ideas that C represents.
Click to expand...

You do realise that this discussion is on the topic of the presidential election, right? The current system in the US makes sure that only A and B can ever be elected. Someone who votes for 'c' most likely has more in common with either A or B. So he has a choice, vote for B which might help elect a president who agrees with him on some topics, or vote for 'c', which is a futile protest, and could be considered helping A.

With this system you could get a result like 45%A 44%B 11%c

A is elected supreme ruler, the distribution of the 55% other votes don't count

Most of the voters for c would have preferred B, and now feel they did something stupid, so c dies out as a viable choice.


One system suggested gives a more accurate view of the people's choice. With preferential votes you can have a result like:
Primary vote: 45%A 44%B 11%c
Secondary votes included: 48%A 49%B

Voters for c have shown what they think, and they will most likely vote like that again.


If you consider the votes for C lost it is as if you will admit that only the votes for A and B have some essence and power this is what I call the idea of the lost vote undemocratic. In democracies every vote has a value, it records an opinion and many votes gathered together record a tendancy in the society.Why eliminate the various tendancies in a society and record only two?
Click to expand...

The point is that you don't have to record only two. And not having preferential voting will preserve the status quo of the two party system, and discourage third party voters.
 
Ladewig
So how does one convince the people in power to dramaticaly change the system so that they have less power?
------------
Zep... Preferential voting means that EVERYBODYS' vote counts, even if you didn't get your first choice of candidate...
Click to expand...

In the U.S., the people in the executive branch and the legislative branch don't want everybody's vote to count. I can't imagine any major changes to the voting system taking place during my lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom