General Election Discussion

« first day next day → last day (15 days later) »

Flimzy

00:02

You would just need a voting system which allows you to rank all candidates, and allows for ties. Then I could select places 1, 2, and 9, and 3-8 could all be considered a tie

El'endia Starman

00:19

@Flimzy Hmmm. Okay, that probably can't be done with STV. Unless you split up the tie vote...hmm.

Flimzy

If you average the tie sores, it could probably be done. In this case, candidates 1-9 would be given respective rankings of: 1, 2, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 9

7 hours later…

fredsbend

07:08

@El'endiaStarman @Flimzy I think that would undo the purpose of STV voting. It is meant to prevent "voting strategies". It is designed to just allow you to vote your mind without regard to anything else.

fredsbend

07:54

Isn't there a state constitution matter to consider on some topics? I'm under the impression that state constitutions detail how votes are made for house reps, senators, and governors. To change that would require whatever that particular constitution mandates for amendment. Is this right? — fredsbend 47 secs ago

10 hours later…

Flimzy

17:40

@fredsbend I don't think it's possible to create a voting system that isn't possible to game. Requiring all voters to rank all candidates is probably the closest we can come, although even that isn't fool proof.

Imagine for the sake of argument, that we have 9 candidates, and one, "Bob", is a clear favorite. I may not hate Bob, but I really think that "Jane" would be much better. I might even consider Bob a distant second choice.

I could "vote my mind" and say Jane #1, and Bob #2, as the voting system would have us do. Or, I could think that it's in my best interest to rank Bob very last, knowing that he will probably win anyway, as a way of hoping to push Jane to the front, so I vote for Jane, #1, Lousy candidate #2, and really lousy candidate #3

If Lousy and Really Lousy have no chance of winning at all, then I have a better chance of my candidate winning if I don't vote for my true second choice.

This could be accounted for if every voter was given a certain number of votes (say, 100), and could give them to any candidates in any quantity they wanted. Then I could give 100 votes to Jane, and 0 to other candidates. Other candidates could give 30 to Bob, 20 to Jane, and 10 each to 7 others.

Of course, in reality, this probably turns into FPTP in practice, as everyone would give all 100 votes to their 1st choice.

AJ Henderson

← 10 messages moved from Christianity 2014 Election

@Flimzy that basically comes back around to my prefered system

@Flimzy I'm not sure that is actually gaming though. I mean, comparatively, you are saying you really don't want your second choice, which is accurate

though you are inaccurately saying you want ones you don't

Flimzy

What is your preferred system?

Does it involve human gladiators? If not, then I have to disagree with your preferred system. :P

AJ Henderson

I only care about getting a candidate that the most people find acceptible

so I prefer a simple vote where you vote for whoever you find suitable

choose as many or few as you like

it doesn't guarentee that the viewpoints are most in line with the populace, but it does guarentee they have viewpoints that are not objectionable to the most people possible

and I personally think that is a more important goal

because it can't be that important if people are willing to vote someone as "ok" despite not having a particular view

but it is more dissatisfying to have someone you don't want

Flimzy

18:02

So I can vote for N candidates, one equal vote each?

5 hours later…