Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Preference Voting System: Let's Do It In NH! (Read 3923 times)
|
|
JAC
|
I had an idea for a new voting system a while back, maybe a few months, and so I figured I'd post it here and get your thoughts on it. Voting Goal:
To elect the candidate who is most preferred by the voters.
Voting Method:
Rank candidates from 1-(number of candidates). The voter can rank every candidate, some of the candidates, or even just list their first preference.
Round 1:
Count 1st place rankings and the candidate that receives the fewest 1st place rankings will be dropped from the race.
Round 2:
The voters who chose dropped candidate will have their 2nd place rankings counted along with other voters' 1st place rankings because their 2nd place rankings are now their 1st.
Round 3:
Again, the candidate with the fewest 1st place rankings is dropped and the voters who chose that candidate will have their 2nd (or possibly 3rd) ranked candidate counted in the next round.
Round 4, 5, etc.:
This method continues until the candidates have been eliminated to the final two.
Final Round:
The candidate with the most 1st place rankings (which could have originally been a voters 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or even 1st place rank) will win the election.
The winning candidate should be the most preferred of the final two candidates amongst the voters. Just as the final two candidates should be the most preferred of the final three candidates. The final three should be the most preferred of the final four; and so on.
This is the best way to conduct voting because it will ensure that the candidate chosen is the one most preferred of the remaining candidates. EXAMPLE:300 people in a society voting for A, B, or C. A will raise taxes; B will keep them the same; and C will lower them. Let's say almost no one supports the middle option, or B. So most people support A and C. 130 people vote A as first. 60 people vote B as first. 110 people vote C as first. B is eliminated as an option since B received the least first place votes. Therefore, we take all the ballots that voted for B and look at their second choice. 10 chose A and 50 chose C. This moves A's total to 140, and C's total to 160. So C wins the election. Taxes will be lowered. Obviously this is just the idea so far. It would take a lot of work and planning to make this a reality; but I believe it's a far better representation of the majority's will then our current system. We in NH can do a lot for voting system reform. This will let people "vote their conscious" as well, while still being assured that their vote, in the end, will count. To use a popular example, people could vote Nader, and Gore would still win. This would eliminate antagonism towards third parties and minority ideas. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fishercat
|
Sounds like the Cambridge MA city council election method. Discussion of pros and cons might be found related to the actual races down there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
orion
|
How about an electronic system that can count votes fairly? I was thinking of a system where you have a live vote counter hanging on the wall of the voting place, which increases as soon as the person casts their vote. It would be less anonymous, but at the same time you could have the public video tape the counter, so that the numbers don't go "down". In addition, the person who voted would have confirmation that the vote was received properly. If not he would raise an appeal (i.e, if he voted for Ron Paul and his vote really went to McCain or whatever).
If one is worried about anonymity, a 3rd party can go up to the voting machine and vote on the person's behalf, but at the same time that person would be standing there to make sure the 3rd party does it right. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
slothman
|
That sounds like IRV, Instant Runoff Voting.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the monotony test.
In other words voting up a candidate might make him lose.
The only advantage is that it isn't plurality and might make third-parties more likely to win.
I think approval is the best method.
It requires little changing to the machines and is easy for voters to understand.
I also like the click-lever machines to vote.
They have no hanging chads, no improper fill-ins, no odd butterfly lists, and is not Diebold.
Warning I have the lever machines here in NY and I like them.
Plus they are harder to make a mistake before you are done, that is open the curtain.
This fall might be the last time they are used here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JAC
|
How about an electronic system that can count votes fairly? I was thinking of a system where you have a live vote counter hanging on the wall of the voting place, which increases as soon as the person casts their vote. It would be less anonymous, but at the same time you could have the public video tape the counter, so that the numbers don't go "down". In addition, the person who voted would have confirmation that the vote was received properly. If not he would raise an appeal (i.e, if he voted for Ron Paul and his vote really went to McCain or whatever).
If one is worried about anonymity, a 3rd party can go up to the voting machine and vote on the person's behalf, but at the same time that person would be standing there to make sure the 3rd party does it right. Thoughts?
I think your idea is a great one, and there's no reason both can't be used since your idea and mine deal with different problems. I'm addressing the flaws in our voting system as it relates to translating public will into law, and you're addressing the problems of accuracy and transparency regarding the actual counting of votes. Both should be discussed and I, personally, like your idea. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
FWIW, the Election Law committee in the NH House seems pretty open to trying "fairer" voting. They just got rid of straight ticket voting (yeah!) and have been working with the LP NH (big thanks to Rich T.) and other 3rd parties to make for easier ballot access. They seem to be very distrustful of pure electronic voting. I think, once you move, if you chat with any of the Reps on the Election Law committee they will be interested in what you have to say. I see no reason why at least a "first-step" bill cannot be brought forward -- get the discussion going in the legislature, instead of on internet forums  The NH Liberty Alliance exists in part to help people connect with New Hampshire's uniquely accessible political process. Join us, and we'll help you get the ball rolling once you arrive in NH http://www..nhliberty.org/join |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JAC
|
FWIW, the Election Law committee in the NH House seems pretty open to trying "fairer" voting. They just got rid of straight ticket voting (yeah!) and have been working with the LP NH (big thanks to Rich T.) and other 3rd parties to make for easier ballot access. They seem to be very distrustful of pure electronic voting. I think, once you move, if you chat with any of the Reps on the Election Law committee they will be interested in what you have to say. I see no reason why at least a "first-step" bill cannot be brought forward -- get the discussion going in the legislature, instead of on internet forums The NH Liberty Alliance exists in part to help people connect with New Hampshire's uniquely accessible political process. Join us, and we'll help you get the ball rolling once you arrive in NH http://www..nhliberty.org/join Thanks. I already registered with the NHLA and am currently waiting approval, which by now is probably done. I can't wait to get to NH and get working on some projects. I'm really excited about it, and I think election reform may be something to aim for right away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Don't we have something like that now?
Where anybody can enter their name on the ballot, and be elected by majority? Or is it the tiering system of second, third, so on that you'd like to establish?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
I agree with slothman in supporting Approval Voting above IRV (the system mentioned in the first message) for the NH House. The way Approval Voting works is that you have as many votes as there are candidates, and you give a vote to every candidate of whom you "approve." The candidates with the most votes win. The reason I favor this above IRV (and Condorcet methods) for the NH House is that the house has several multi-seat districts. IRV can be adapted to work with multi-member districts (cf. Ireland's Single Transferable Vote system), but it's difficult to explain to people, & voting becomes an extremely difficult operation above a certain number of candidates (a 7-seat district could easily have 15 candidates - pretty difficult to rank them all!). Approval Voting is simple and allows small parties that can appeal to both sides a chance for representation. It makes it hard for extremist candidates (disapproved by a large majority) to win.
For the NH Senate, statewide party list proportional representation would be my ideal. Senate districts don't really represent natural regions of NH, so making the whole state a single district would pretty much guarantee a seat to any party with at least 4% statewide support (1/24). Having two different electoral systems for the House & Senate would represent the population in two different, equally valid ways: by geography (House) and by ideology (Senate). The Senate could keep the broader interests of the state in mind, while the House would represent the towns. The two bodies could check and balance each other more effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
nathanlarson3141
|
If you guys aren't yet ready to go to total anarchy yet, then the next best thing is to use liquid democracy. It maximizes the conformity of voting results on legislation to the will of the people, for what that's worth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy and scroll down to "Delegated voting." Corporations have been using similar methods for centuries. It's proven and it works; we just haven't gotten around to using it in government because the state typically lags behind business in making any kind of needed reform. IRV has more problems than just non-monotonicity - there's also the bundling issue, which it shares with plurality voting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_%28public_choice%29-Nathan |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
For the NH Senate, statewide party list proportional representation would be my ideal.
Although it's politically totally infeasible, I'd love to see the Senate districted proportionally to the amount of property taxes paid in the region, and elected from within the House of Representatives. That's how it used to be, until the populists corrupted the NH Constitution. If you guys aren't yet ready to go to total anarchy yet
What makes you think I'm not an anarchist? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
Don't we have something like that now?
Where anybody can enter their name on the ballot, and be elected by majority? Or is it the tiering system of second, third, so on that you'd like to establish?
Because there aren't any activists trying to push it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanlarson3141
|
For the NH Senate, statewide party list proportional representation would be my ideal.
Although it's politically totally infeasible, I'd love to see the Senate districted proportionally to the amount of property taxes paid in the region, and elected from within the House of Representatives. That's how it used to be, until the populists corrupted the NH Constitution. If you guys aren't yet ready to go to total anarchy yet
What makes you think I'm not an anarchist? That's why I said "If." ;P |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
