mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, I'll think of something yet) (01/01/89)
>> In Canada and the US we have governments/leaders that the majority of >> the people voted against. (Probably in britain too) The crisis lies >> in the inability of constitutions and electoral procedures to come up >> with a way of translating that into a defeat of the government. Call >> it fractured and divided opposition. We might consider "Australian rules" voting ("'s becuase that's what I've heard it called - I have no idea what, if any, relation it has to Australia). By this system, all voters rank the choices. The votes for #1 are then counted. If nobody achieves a majority, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and all those who had that as the #1 vote have all the other choices moved up by one. This process repeats until some candidate has a majority. In the US, this probably woulnd't change much - the press doesn't seem to realize that there are more than two parties. However, it would certainly help solve the "Voting against the other person" syndrome (polls showed that roughly 50% of the people voting for either Bush or Dukakis were actually voting against Dukakis or Bush). Care to comment on how it would effect the Canadian system? In a national election, you'd just about have to have a computer-aided voting system. Maybe others would care to comment on that? And I'm not sure what kind of tweaks it would take if you wished to keep the electoral college - have that applied in each state? <mike
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (01/01/89)
In article <8901010855.AA11720@violet.berkeley.edu>, mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) writes: >We might consider "Australian rules" voting ("'s becuase that's what >I've heard it called - I have no idea what, if any, relation it has to >Australia). By this system, all voters rank the choices. The votes for >#1 are then counted. If nobody achieves a majority, the least popular >candidate is eliminated, and all those who had that as the #1 vote >have all the other choices moved up by one. This process repeats until >some candidate has a majority. This is called the "single transferrable vote" system of voting. It's used in a few places to elect at-large councils and similar groups. But it isn't really that useful when electing for a single office. The Hare System of Proportional Representation is similar in purpose. The Irish Dail and the City Council of Cambridge, MA are elected using the Hare system. Both systems are a legacy of the populist era of the 1930s. Both are hard to tabulate, although today, this should be much less of an issue. John Nagle
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/03/89)
In article <17958@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>, jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes about the "Australian System". > This is called the "single transferrable vote" system of voting. > But it isn't really that useful when electing for a single office. How come? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (01/04/89)
> > > In Canada and the US we have governments/leaders that the majority of > > > the people voted against. > We might consider "Australian rules" voting ... Australian rules is a fine idea for any election where there is a direct popular vote; it allows a single vote to serve both as a "primary" and as the actual election. In other words, it avoids the problem where two candidates with similar, popular platforms "split the vote" and a third candidate with a less preferred platform is elected. However, that problem is not the reason that Canada elected a government which had a minority of the popular vote. The actual popular vote was, in round numbers, 45% PC, 35% Lib, 20% NDP, 0% others. If there had been a single national vote and Australian rules were used in it, any of the parties might conceivably have won. But there wasn't a single national vote; we have a Parliamentary system, and the voting was by districts. A majority of districts voted PC -- or to be still more exact, the PCs received a plurality in a majority of districts. This is why they got a minority of the popular vote but have formed a majority government. If you think that this is a problem, then the way to fix it is by proportional representation: the PCs get 45% of their slate of candidates elected, and similarly for the others, but a district doesn't necessarily get represented by someone whom its residents voted for. In the US, the Electoral College can lead to a similar phenomenon and has done so more than once. If you think that this is a problem, then the way to fix it is to elect the President by direct popular vote. Discussion as to whether these are in fact problems to be fixed belongs in talk.politics.theory, not comp.society.futures, and I have directed followups there. Mark Brader "... one of the main causes of the fall of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they utzoo!sq!msb had no way to indicate successful termination msb@sq.com of their C programs." -- Robert Firth
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (01/04/89)
M It> UFGATE newsin 1.19 M It> M It>In the US, this probably woulnd't change much - the press doesn't seem M It>to realize that there are more than two parties. However, it would M It>certainly help solve the "Voting against the other person" syndrome M It>(polls showed that roughly 50% of the people voting for either Bush or M It>Dukakis were actually voting against Dukakis or Bush). Care to comment M It>on how it would effect the Canadian system? In the last election a lot of people voted against the government policy. About 59% actually. But two parties split that vote. The government earned 41% of the popular vote and gained a majority in parliament, while the two main opposition parties split the remaining 59%. If the voter could rank a number two choice, and have his vote go there if his number one ended up at the bottom, then Canada would not have the same government today. Personally though, i like the way France does it. If there is not a clear majority after the election, they hold a run-off election, etc., until one candidate emerges with a clear majority. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11 DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: doug@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (01/05/89)
Sorry, but I don't get any of the talk.* groups and I have this irrepressible
urge to remove some of the confusion which seems to exist with regard to
electoral systems.
Australian Rules is the Alternative Vote system. It is not STV (the Single
Transferable Vote). STV is not appropriate when only one candidate is to be
elected because it boils down to the Alternative Vote (AV) system under these
circumstances. STV is based on the idea of multi-member constituencies and
attempts to reflect the percentage of the vote for a party in the percentage
of seats which they gain. With only one seat up for grabs it is identical to
the AV system.
The French system works well in France because, after the first round of
voting, the parties normally negotiate to ensure that only two candidates
stand in the second round. They can do this because French politics boils
down to a Left-Right battle (Ie. a two-horse race). Mind you it is quite
conceivable that the cause and effect might be the other way round.
Personally, I don't see why STV could not be used to elect the Electoral
College in US Presidential elections. It seems absurd that ALL of the votes
cast by a state in the Electoral College should go to ONE candidate when it
would be a very simple matter to distribute them to the candidates in the
same proportions as the popular vote. But why mess about with an Electoral
College anyway? Why not use the popular vote?
I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the
trouble of turning up to vote for it. I thought that it was possible for a
voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US
elections anyway. Am I wrong?
Yours,
*
Old/Saint Nick
* Delete as applicable!
GIVE TEXAS BACK TO MEXICO !khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) (01/07/89)
In article <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > >Australian Rules is .... Thank you for the clarification. > >Personally, I don't see why STV could not be used to elect the Electoral >College in US Presidential elections. It seems absurd that ALL of the votes >cast by a state in the Electoral College should go to ONE candidate when it >would be a very simple matter to distribute them to the candidates in the >same proportions as the popular vote. But why mess about with an Electoral >College anyway? Why not use the popular vote? In principal the EC is there to protect us from serious mistakes by the popular vote. In this last election it would have been wonderful if the EC had ditched Bush and Dukkais and put in, say, J. Kirkpatrick and Tip O'Neal. Since the EC seems to feel itself bound to mirror the popular vote (and most citizens would be shocked if they acted differently) it should be abolished (or it should do its job). > >I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the >trouble of turning up to vote for it. If NOTA would result in a new slate of candiates (i.e. losers can't run in the next round), and if enough NOTA's in a row resulted in the position being eliminated, I think NOTA would be very popular in many circles. I thought that it was possible for a >voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US >elections anyway. Am I wrong? Yes it is possible, but it is very hard to get a write in campagin to work. > > GIVE TEXAS BACK TO MEXICO ! #1 Texas left Mexico and established itself as a state before joining the US. Thus we could set them "free" but it is beyond our power for force them to join with Mexico. #2 Lincoln et al. established that joining the US is a one way street. Once signed up, that bit of geography is stuck forever. :> Keith H. Bierman It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/08/89)
In article <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > It seems absurd that ALL of the votes > cast by a state in the Electoral College should go to ONE candidate when it > would be a very simple matter to distribute them to the candidates in the > same proportions as the popular vote. But why mess about with an Electoral > College anyway? Why not use the popular vote? (1) Actually, the Federal Constitution does not require the winner-take- all system, or any other. Each State Legislature makes the rules for selection of electors --- and as late as 1860, South Carolina didn't even *have* a popular vote. Nowadays, I believe, Maine distributes its 4 electoral votes thus: 2 (representing the Senate seats, of course) for the first-place finisher Statewide; 1 for each Federal House district carried. Since there are 2 such areas, the Maine vote could be 4-0, 3-1, or 2-2 ... or, conceivably, 2-1-1. (2) While I personally *would* vote to do away with the Electoral College, it does have two pluses: [a] it reminds us that we live in a federal, not a unitary, system --- and until political power can be abolished, splitting it is important in a practical sense, so I see some value in reminding folks that it's supposed to be split here in these overly-united States; [b] it's the only reason the Establishment press will pay any attention at all to alternative candidates. Had it not been for the EC, John Anderson would have received virtually no coverage at all in 1980, because everyone knew he would finish third. But since, at first, there were several States that looked like they might give him a plurality, thus perhaps forcing Congress to get involved (the House would pick the Prez, the Senate the Veep), he gained some attention for his campaign and his views (I don't share most of his views, but think he was entitled to fair play from the press -- and that the voters were entitled to know where he stood, so they could make an informed choice). For those who think the two-party system is sacred, it is interesting to note that the Federal Constitution itself takes the idea of a multi-candidate race quite calmly, as the House picks the President from among the top ***three*** EC votegetters. > > I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the > trouble of turning up to vote for it. I thought that it was possible for a > voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US > elections anyway. Am I wrong? (1) Keep in mind that we fill many offices at once in U. S. elections! John Citizen might be totally turned off with all candidates for Office A, but want to vote for someone for Office B. He could then go ahead and express both preferences. However, I think there *are* many who, even in a one-race election, might go to express their dismay or disgust via NOTA. (2) Write-in votes are *not* permitted in every State (despite a Federal Supreme Court ruling that they must be), some States that permit it make it difficult (more on this in a sec), and many States don't count the ones cast. As for difficulty, back when we used machines, the slot for write-ins was very small, and often the candidate's name had to be written in one particular form only (for instace, in 1964, in a Florida gubernatorial vote, Robert King High's name *had* to be written in R. K. High, or the State refused to count it -- despite that fact that this was *not* the way he used his name when he was on the ballot). Also, Florida at one time required that, for a Presidential write in to be valid, what had to be written in (in a space SMALLER THAN 2 sq in) were the names of the Electoral College candidates. In 1976, Florida had *17* electoral votes! Now it has more, but some of Florida's gone to computer voting, so I don't know what system they use for write-ins. Anyway, in 1976, I complied with the law, and wrote in the names of all 17 electors for Roger MacBride, the Libertarian candidate ... and the weasels at the Elections Bureau -still- didn't count my vote. I called the ACLU, but they told me they were spending all their time that year keeping people out of the electric chair. Since my principles forbid murder or rape, I was not a candidate for the chair, and thus was out of luck. But whenever you see Roger MacBride's vote totals in a footnote somewhere, add one to the figure! Jeff Daiell (opinions my own until taxed away) INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/08/89)
In article <84294@sun.uucp>, khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes: > In article <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > > > >But why mess about with an Electoral > >College anyway? Why not use the popular vote? > > ...the EC seems to feel itself bound to mirror the > popular vote (and most citizens would be shocked if they acted > differently) For the most part. There are frequent exceptions. In 1960 some electors from States that went to Kennedy voted for, I believe, Richard Byrd; in '68 a Nixon elector opted for George Wallace; in '72 an Nixon-Agnew elector voted for the Libertarian ticket of John Hospers and Tonie Nathan (thus making Ms. Nathan the first women to receive an electoral vote); in '76 a Ford elector went for Reagan; last year a Dukakis-Bentsen elector voted Bentsen- Dukakis instead ... to protest: the Electoral College! > > > > >I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the > >trouble of turning up to vote for it. > > If NOTA would result in a new slate of candiates (i.e. losers can't > run in the next round), and if enough NOTA's in a row resulted in the > position being eliminated, I think NOTA would be very popular in many > circles. I'd suggest another possibility (altho eliminating the office entirely would certainly be my first preference!). That, should NOTA win, the office, even if not abolished, go unfilled for that term. > > I thought that it was possible for a > >voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US > >elections anyway. > > Yes it is possible, but it is very hard to get a write in campagin to > work. It has happened - even a U. S. Senate seat was once filled this way, I believe (Strom Thurmond's first term, I *think*, was won this way. But it is indeed difficult, even if you can motivate people to overcome the obstacles placed in the way (see my previous posting on those obstacles), and motivating people to write someone in can be hard. One thing we can do is make it easier for individuals and parties to get on the ballot: reduce filing fees or the number of signatures on nominating petitions required to be allowed to run. > > > > GIVE TEXAS BACK TO MEXICO ! > > > #2 Lincoln et al. established that joining the US is a one way street. > Once signed up, that bit of geography is stuck forever. Actually, it was Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, et alia who 'established' that. Constitutionally, however, there are no bars to secession (remember the 10th Amendment?) -- besides, doesn't the Treaty by which Texas annexed The Union allow us to "dissolve the political bonds which have connected" us to that Union? (Quote from The Declaration of Independence of the 13 original States). However, as has been pointed out, the purpose of c.s.f. is to discuss the future of computer technology, and this particular discussion started with a question of whether a compnet should be voluntarily or coercively financed. This leads to a sub- question: which interests should it serve, those of computing and of Human improvement and advancement, or those of politicians and bureaucrats? Personally, I'd prefer the former. Anyone out there prefer having it serve the interests of the Jim Wrights, Dan Quayles, Maggie Thatchers, Neil Kinnocks, etc.? Jeff Daiell (opinions my own, until taxed away) INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
hamish@root.co.uk (Hamish Reid) (01/12/89)
In article <17958@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >In article <8901010855.AA11720@violet.berkeley.edu>, >mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) writes: >>We might consider "Australian rules" voting ("'s becuase that's what >>I've heard it called - I have no idea what, if any, relation it has to >>Australia). > [...] > This is called the "single transferrable vote" system of voting. >It's used in a few places to elect at-large councils and similar groups. >But it isn't really that useful when electing for a single office. Why ever not? In a sense, that's exactly what it's used for (Federally) in Australia - to pick the single representative for each lower house electoral area. Of course, the upper house (the Senate) uses Proportional Representation (of a kind) - but that's a different story. Both systems are, in my opinion, fairer than either the US or UK systems.... > The Hare System of Proportional Representation is similar in purpose. >The Irish Dail and the City Council of Cambridge, MA are elected using the >Hare system. Also used (in a slightly-modified form called the Hare-Clark system), in Tasmania (the little bit usually left off the bottom of maps of Australia). > Both systems are a legacy of the populist era of the 1930s. Both are >hard to tabulate, although today, this should be much less of an issue. "Legacy of the ... of the 1930's"? Not in Australia, they weren't. Hard to tabulate? Gosh, if us Australians can do it... :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hamish Reid UniSoft Ltd, Hayne St, London EC1A 9HH England +44-1-606-7799 hamish@root.co.uk mcvax!ukc!root44!hamish