A simple solution to the "third party" problem.

[Random]

So how does one convince the people in power to dramaticaly change the system so that they have less power?

Violent, armed rebellion followed by a series of selective decapitations usually works.

 

[Tmy]

Its not the voting system thats the problem,its the election rules.

The rules have been devloped by the 2 party legistlators and they use these hurdles to keep out 3rd parties. Look at the hassle you have to go through to get on the ballot, get funds, get on televised debates. THe bar is set so high that only dems and repubs can qualify.

I was so peeved that Nader was left out of the last election debates that I voted for him out of spite.

 

[Cleopatra]

This means they can express their support for C as opposed to B.

In you example B and C have minor differences. The citizens can bring real significant changes like mergers and collaborations by participating actively in the political parties.

Raplh Nader for example, doesn't feel that he is covered by The Ketchup so for one more time he wants that his difference for the Democrats to be judged. Nader thinks that he is different otherwise he would join the Democrats but he doesn't. Obviously you cannot voter for Nader AND The Ketchup.

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.

This is not the point of the elections. A voter is asked to reply to the following question:Who is the best for President? The whole concept of democracy is based on the dichotomy between winners and losers. Losers have a vital constitutional role to play, by introducing such systems you underestimate the vital role of the opposition, also, on the long run you weaken the struggle and this is not for the benefit of the society. As far as I know everything positive in modern societies was the outcome of conflicts, not necessarily violent of course but conflicts for sure.

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.

The voter has the ultimate power anyway. We count the votes we don't scale them, so this is not really an argument. If a voter wants for a specific candidate/party to win he is free to vote for him and he has the obligation to think well before casting his vote.

The whole idea is based on the concept of the lost vote and this is the reason why I dismiss it.

 

[LuxFerum]

The whole idea is based on the concept of the lost vote and this is the reason why I dismiss it.

No, it is not. It is based on weighting the rejection of a candidate.

If you have 9 good candidates and 1 very bad one, that have 11% of the poputalion in his side and 89% completely agains him.
Those 9 will get 9,8% of the votes each, and will have to go to a run off with a candidate that 89% strongly reject.
But not with this system, everyone who vote on those 9 chose anoter one of those 9 as a second opinion. And this will lead to a run off between 2 of those 9.

Without this, the result of the election will be decided by only 20% of the population. Not very democratic.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Raplh Nader for example, doesn't feel that he is covered by The Ketchup so for one more time he wants that his difference for the Democrats to be judged. Nader thinks that he is different otherwise he would join the Democrats but he doesn't. Obviously you cannot voter for Nader AND The Ketchup.

And in standing he increases the chances of the Republicans winning. How many people do you think are put of voting for him because they don't want to see Dubya back in the White House?

A first past the post system results in votes being given to likely winners rather than the voters preferred choice. A transferrable vote addresses that.

This is not the point of the elections. A voter is asked to reply to the following question:Who is the best for President? The whole concept of democracy is based on the dichotomy between winners and losers. Losers have a vital constitutional role to play, by introducing such systems you underestimate the vital role of the opposition, also, on the long run you weaken the struggle and this is not for the benefit of the society. As far as I know everything positive in modern societies was the outcome of conflicts, not necessarily violent of course but conflicts for sure.

The voter has the ultimate power anyway. We count the votes we don't scale them, so this is not really an argument. If a voter wants for a specific candidate/party to win he is free to vote for him and he has the obligation to think well before casting his vote.

The whole idea is based on the concept of the lost vote and this is the reason why I dismiss it.

You always have losers under whatever system you choose so I don't understand your point about lack of opposition. Also not sure what you mean by scaling votes?

So what is the point of primaries then? Why not just put all the candidates before the public to let them choose who would be best?

 

[Cleopatra]

And in standing he increases the chances of the Republicans winning. How many people do you think are put of voting for him because they don't want to see Dubya back in the White House?

Now we are talking about the essence because this is why dear Tricky started this topic.

In one election those who won't vote for Nader for fear that Bush will be re-elected are those that they do not care about programes but about persons. Their prime concern is how Bush will not be re-elected. Quite a negative stance in a society, don't you think? Citizens have the right to cast their vote according to what they consider to be the most important thing in an election. Those that will vote with this cretirium think that they most important thing in an election is the person not the policy. Each one makes his choices let them make theirs and live with the consequencies.

Elections are about choices and their consequencies.

A first past the post system results in votes being given to likely winners rather than the voters preferred choice. A transferrable vote addresses that.

The trasferable votes addresses the fears of Mr. Ketchup and his supporters who believe that the votes for Nader are lost votes. This is undemocratic because it shows that they scale the votes of citizens to positive and negative and they do not count them as equal.

Also, let me tell you something else. If the votes of Nader are those that they will judge the outcome it means that Nader will be the person who will have won Bush if he didn't run for the election. How can people name the man who makes the difference a lost vote?

Vote for Nader, he is a good lawyer.

You always have losers under whatever system you choose so I don't understand your point about lack of opposition. Also not sure what you mean by scaling votes?

I said that the votes of the citizens are very powerfull anyway since each vote is counted not scalled. The system Tricky proposes will end to a weak opposition and it is based on undemocratic concept of characterizing votes as negative.

So what is the point of primaries then? Why not just put all the candidates before the public to let them choose who would be best?

I agree with you but it seems that the big parties in the States want to be represented by a single candidate.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Now we are talking about the essence because this is why dear Tricky started this topic.

In one election those who won't vote for Nader for fear that Bush will be re-elected are those that they do not care about programes but about persons. Their prime concern is how Bush will not be re-elected. Quite a negative stance in a society, don't you think? Citizens have the right to cast their vote according to what they consider to be the most important thing in an election. Those that will vote with this cretirium think that they most important thing in an election is the person not the policy. Each one makes his choices let them make theirs and live with the consequencies.

A voter could believe that Nader has the best program and Bush the worst. Don't see why it has to have anything to do with people rather than programs.

[/quote]Elections are about choices and their consequencies.

The trasferable votes addresses the fears of Mr. Ketchup and his supporters who believe that the votes for Nader are lost votes. This is undemocratic because it shows that they scale the votes of citizens to positive and negative and they do not count them as equal.

Also, let me tell you something else. If the votes of Nader are those that they will judge the outcome it means that Nader will be the person who will have won Bush if he didn't run for the election. How can people name the man who makes the difference a lost vote?[/quote]

So the person they least want to win gets in because they are honest and vote for the person they want to win rather than against their worst case. It is a strange electoral system that provides a disincentive to vote for who you want to win.

I said that the votes of the citizens are very powerfull anyway since each vote is counted not scalled. The system Tricky proposes will end to a weak opposition and it is based on undemocratic concept of characterizing votes as negative.

Why does it lead to weak opposition? I see no logical reason why it should? Could you explain what you mean by characterizing votes as negative (sorry - I'm struggling to understand that bit).

I agree with you but it seems that the big parties in the States want to be represented by a single candidate.

Or because the electoral system makes it suicide to allow more than one candidate to go forward. Therefore the public are disenfranchised as a result of the electoral system.

 

[Thanz]

This is not the point of the elections. A voter is asked to reply to the following question:Who is the best for President?

The problem is that the current system doesn't actually ask this question - or at least, it is not the question that gets answered. The real question is "Out of the two candidates that seem to have a chance of winning, who is better?". I don't see how this is more democratic.

As for the idea that "negative votes" are bad, well wake up and smell the coffee. The reality is that people do not vote governments in, they vote governments out - and usually the decision is based on the wallet. This is why Bush Sr. lost despite having huge approval ratings after the Gulf War. The economy went into the tank in early 90's, and Bush was voted out.

Further, the choice to vote against someone is not always a decision about the person over policies. It can also be "I like the policies of C a lot, and of B a little. But the policies of A are a disaster, so I'd better vote for B to prevent the disaster of A"

 

[Tricky]

Sorry Cleo. Looks like you've been outvoted. You will have to concede this debate.

 

[corplinx]

The reality is that people do not vote governments in, they vote governments out - and usually the decision is based on the wallet. This is why Bush Sr. lost despite having huge approval ratings after the Gulf War. The economy went into the tank in early 90's, and Bush was voted out.

Perhaps you have forgotten that Ross Perot played the spoiler in that race.

It amazes that now these third parties are a problem when they make a democrat lose.

A while back I made a post about the "faux choice" republicans. Perhaps its time for one on "faux choice" democrats.

 

[Thanz]

Perhaps you have forgotten that Ross Perot played the spoiler in that race.

Did he? I certainly don't remember it being as dramatic as Nader, but then the whole election wasn't as dramatic.

It amazes that now these third parties are a problem when they make a democrat lose.

While a don't recall specifically, I'd be surprised if similar concerns were not expressed by right wing advocates at the time. The only difference is who is doing the complaining.

In Canada, the traditional right wing party was in disarray after going from a majority government to 2 seats in the Commons, which helped in the rise of a different right wing party from out west to gain in popularity. For a while we had 2 different right wing alternatives, which kept splitting the vote and allowing the more centrist-left Liberal party to keep winning. They have now joined forces to present one national right-leaning alternative to the liberals to avoid vote splitting. In short, I think that it is a concern for both sides - it just depends on who the most credible third party person is.

 

[corplinx]

While a don't recall specifically, I'd be surprised if similar concerns were not expressed by right wing advocates at the time. The only difference is who is doing the complaining.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember so much volume of complaining or from such high profile people or being carried in so many mainstream news outlets.

 

[Thanz]

I could be wrong, but I don't remember so much volume of complaining or from such high profile people or being carried in so many mainstream news outlets.

I could also be wrong, but I would speculate that this is the case because of the fiasco in Florida. The Florida situation was examined to death, and of course part of that was the effect of Nader. Such was not the case in 1992.

 

[bjornart]

Now we are talking about the essence because this is why dear Tricky started this topic.

In one election those who won't vote for Nader for fear that Bush will be re-elected are those that they do not care about programes but about persons. Their prime concern is how Bush will not be re-elected. Quite a negative stance in a society, don't you think? Citizens have the right to cast their vote according to what they consider to be the most important thing in an election. Those that will vote with this cretirium think that they most important thing in an election is the person not the policy. Each one makes his choices let them make theirs and live with the consequencies.

Elections are about choices and their consequencies.

Unless you want to give up the comfortable, and necessary, illusion that politicians only lie, the person _is_ the policies.

Let's pretend there are just five issues to consider. Your favourite candidate agrees with you on four of those 11110, but even polls where they specifically ask which candiadate people prefer rather than what they would vote only gives him 5% of the vote. The big candidates are fairly equal, but one agrees with you on one issue 10000 and the other agrees with you on none 00000, and these two are fairly evenly matched. If you vote for 10000 you cast a vote for that one issue, and it could make a big difference, it might elect that candidate. If you vote for 11110 you cast a vote for something you believe in, but it won't make any difference, and it might even give 00000 the edge.

How is it undemocratic to let a voter do both? Give a primary vote to 11110 so the election stats show that's how you feel, but still let you give a second choice so you can influence the choice of the lesser of two evils if that's how you feel.
You may say it's negative voting, but that's how people think. If everything is going their way they don't bother voting. If something isn't to their liking they vote for someone who'll change it.

 

[patnray]

Elections are about choices and their consequencies.

This is a gross oversimplification. The fact is that when there are more than two choices, the "winner" could be the choice that is the least preferred by a majority of the voters. It is a complex issue that has been studied by mathemeticians for well over 100 years. There is no ideal solution, although some are better than others.

Furthermore, in our times elections involve complex issues and most choices are not simple black and white choices.

This month's Scientific American has an article discussing some of the issues and alternative voting systems.

 

[NightG1]

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.

So long as whatever final version is put in place, that version does not include a provision for run-offs.

 

[Jocko]

I could be wrong, but I don't remember so much volume of complaining or from such high profile people or being carried in so many mainstream news outlets.

Yeah, it's odd since Perot garnered what - 17% of the popular vote in '92? That's over SIX TIMES what Nader drew in 2000. I remember that no one took him seriously until too late. Perhaps the Dems are learning from history (there's a first time for everything, huh?) and going pre-emptive. Can't say I blame them.

Then again, Perot was entertaining. Nader is just plain creepy. It's amazing how different two otherwise identical ego trips can be.

 

[Jocko]

Unless you want to give up the comfortable, and necessary, illusion that politicians only lie, the person _is_ the policies.

SNIP!

How is it undemocratic to let a voter do both? Give a primary vote to 11110 so the election stats show that's how you feel, but still let you give a second choice so you can influence the choice of the lesser of two evils if that's how you feel.
You may say it's negative voting, but that's how people think. If everything is going their way they don't bother voting. If something isn't to their liking they vote for someone who'll change it.

So how can you differentiate between the politician and the policies? As you correctly stated, you're electing a person, not a platform. You're not voting for the ala carte list of issues, you're voting for a person.

That's why it's not called the presidential referendum!

Ideally, I'd like to think that balancing one's priorities against the platforms of the candidates would cause one to decide what's important and act accordingly. Besides, what happens when a voter's interest in a particular issue wanes in less than four years? Now THAT'S a wasted vote.

 

[JesFine]

Well I hate to stick math into a perfectly good political discussion, but the fact is, there is no perfect voting system. It is a mathematical impossibility. The example Tricky gave is known as the Condorcet method and a Condorcet winner will not always exist. For example, a three person election (candidates A, B, and C):

5 voters -> A then B then C
4 voters -> B then C then A
3 voters -> C then A then B

A beats B 8-4, B beats C 9-3, and C beats A 7-5. So who wins?

Here is a more complicated example (from Beyond Numeracy by John Allen Paulos). We will say there are 5 candidates and 55 voters:

18 voters prefer A to D to E to C to B
12 voters prefer B to E to D to C to A
10 voters prefer C to B to E to D to A
 9 voters prefer D to C to E to B to A
 4 voters prefer E to B to D to C to A
 2 voters prefer E to C to D to B to A

"A" says he clearly wins because he got the most votes with 18.

"B" says wait a minute, there should be a runoff between the two candidates with the most votes. In that case, "B" would clearly win 37-18.

"C" thinks hard and finally says hold everything, we should eliminate the candidate with the fewest first place votes. This means "E" is gone. Now, we should again eliminate the candidate with the fewest first place votes. "D" is now gone. We should keep doing this until there are only two candidates left, and thus "C" wins 39-16.

"D" says, look this is simple, we should assign points to each vote. 5 for first, 4 for second, and so on. Wow, look at that, says "D", using that method, I win with 191 total points.

"E" says you are all fools! The only way to decide this race is mano-a-mano, and in a head to head match with each of you, I win.

So which of these methods is most reasonable? The whole point is that none are most reasonable. They are all reasonable in their own way, and this (admittedly contrived) example shows that there can always be a flaw. Usually the disagreement is not five-way like in the above example, but two-way disagreements have happened in the past and will happen in the future. The problem now becomes which of these voting methods to choose, and it is very hard to choose objectively among them when you have a stake in the results. "A" supporters will tend to choose the first method, "B" supporters the second, and so on.

Paulos goes on to describe a method called "approval voting" in which you select (with no ranking) the candidates that you approve of. The total votes are then tallied and the person with the most votes wins. He seems to like that one although it has its flaws as well.

There is no such thing as a perfectly fair voting system. But since people don't like "there is no such thing" answers, I predict the debate will rage on.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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.

Smile when you say that, par'dner.

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.

Wouldn't it be better to be able to vote on the issue of building the dam? Vote no on measure B, the dam initiative.

I think the two party system has served the US well and provided a check and balance to the way power is used. You can generally put our other minor parties under a conservative or liberal umbrella.

I think a preferential voting system has the potential for even more corruption than a two party system. A similar system just imploded in Sri Lanka not too long ago over corruption issues.