Is an ideal voting system possible?

[jordan]

I read this article recently that talked about different methods of voting. Incidently, the US system turned out to be just about as bad as one could be. It very rarely provides a true reading and is very syseptable to manipulation. Since the US usuasly has two candidates with any realistic chance, the system doesn't do too bad, but throw three equal candidates into the mix and you get very poor results. The article continued with some other prosposed solutions. This is where you all come in. I would like to see what we can come up with for the most fair system.

 

My favorite so far is call the instant run-off vote where voters rank all candidates in order from favorite to least favorite. Each candidate then gets 1 point for each first place vote. The candidate with the fewest points is eliminated. Then, the points of those who voted for the now-eliminated candidate go to those voters second pick. The candidate who now has the fewest is eliminated and so on until there is a winner.

 

I like this one or one with a slight modification of my own: candidates get 1 point for a first place pick, 1/2 for a second place pick, 1/4 for a third place and so one. This wouldn't discourage people from voting for a long shot because they know that even if their first choice doesn't win, the mainstream candidate wont get a full point from them. What do you think?

[Dave]

At my student's union, we pick who we want to vote for (can be as little as one person) and then rank them: say if you pick 3 people, your favourite gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2 and least gets 1. I think that this is a great way of voting myself, but I've never really subjected it to any kind of proper statistical analysis. I also think you'd get a much higher turnout for votes if you put a little box that said "I think all the candidates suck", or words to that effect.

 

And yes, I think the US scheme of voting does suck immensely, as demonstrated brilliantly by the 2000 elections.

[budullewraagh]

we need people to be politically educated in order for them to vote

[jordan]

Good point. What would you suggest to ensure that people are?

[budullewraagh]

classes. although they would be biased

[Thales]

I think we should draw names out of a hat. That way the probablity of someone dumber than bush getting elected is severly reduced

 

If they suck then they should be manditorially assinated, it would be good motivation not to stuff up. Terms should last a week. It would be a good way to curb popultion growth also.

 

The abundance of seriousness in this post should be taken into account!

[J'Dona]

I'll type really quickly because I have to leave for work in ten minutes.

 

What about a system without actual parties, but where people vote constantly on all the different issues? As it is now, people vote for their party, who sets news laws and makes amendments and so forth, but in many cases the majority will not be behind all of their policies and so forth. A two-party system has the advantages of only one vote (easy for the people to choose and, incidentally, measier for the government to manipulate). Without a set party and with people voting on all the issues, there is very little room for corruption and every single policy would be for the majority of the population. This would require a lot of effort on behalf of the people, but this can be offset somewhat by tax cuts or extra holidays for those registered to vote (an extra week, for example, to ensure that they can always turn up to vote and have some time to study).

 

Two things to make it work properly though:

1 - Make voting mandatory if you are able to vote,

2 - The right to vote is only retained if you pass regular political tests.

 

Obviously that sounds dictatorial, but it ensures that every vote is informed and fair. If you didn't want to vote or be bothered with politics, then fine, you don't have to, but you won't be allowed to vote because should you be swayed by propaganda (whoever for, I don't know, because there are no parties) then you cannot vote due to some sudden and fanciful feelings about one policy or another without actually understanding them, and you'd have to take tests and study it to vote on it. But a vote made by someone without any real knowledge of the issues is both unrepresentative and damaging to the concept of democracy. A fair and unbiased media is hence the single greatest concern for this nation.

 

Ack, got to go now...

[Severian]

I always get pissed off when America describes itself as a democracy. It is not a democracy - it is a federal republic. A democracy is where the decisions of government are made by the people through a democratic vote - not where the people vote for a candidate to represent them in government.

 

The closest we have right now to a true democracy is Switzerland. It may be possible to make a 'true' democracy in the future by setting up some kind of internet voting on issues, but would we really want that? Is democracy really the best form of government?

 

Even though Hitler's election was a sham, he did have vast popular support in Germany. The majority is not always right. I don't like having democracy itself as a goal, a principle to acheive, or even a desire. I think good government should be the desire, and if democracy is part of that, then fine, but if it isn't, that's fine too.

[J'Dona]

I don't know about Switzerland, but Sweden is also has a good track record in that area. They hold more mass referendums than just about any other country in the world (don't know about any others but please correct me if I'm wrong), so people have more direct control over governmental policies. (They also have the highest % of population with internet access of any country in the world, one of the best education systems, one of the best mail services, and lots of blonde women!)

 

Even though Hitler's election was a sham, he did have vast popular support in Germany. The majority is not always right. I don't like having democracy itself as a goal, a principle to acheive, or even a desire. I think good government should be the desire, and if democracy is part of that, then fine, but if it isn't, that's fine too.

You're right about that, though one of the main reasons for vast popular support was probably propaganda at the time. The problem with a lot of media services is that they are either government-controlled (obviously biased) or privatised corporations, which the government usually supports through policies and hence influences the material they are willing to show which might reflect badly upon the government. The only way I can see around that would be either by the methods I gave in my post above, without a party to influence (though far-fetched and not really relevant as it just wouldn't happen), or more realistically, through some form of international media network, with international funding and administration, which wouldn't be as biased toward any country. Maybe tie it into the UN somehow so that all member states must contribute some funding toward it and allow access to it in their country (where some of the funding goes toward making sure it is widely available).

[john5746]

A true democracy would be anarchy and very inefficient. A dictatorship is very efficient, so a mix is the best. I like Jordan's ranking system.

 

I would like to see money taken out of the equation. Have each candidate place their format and answers to predefined questions on a website, then have several debates. Have a day off for voting. Everyone has a vote, but money is the real decision maker.

[budullewraagh]

A true democracy would be anarchy and very inefficient.

direct democracies are great when applied to small populations.

[jordan]

direct democracies are great when applied to small populations.

But so is anarchy.

 

Have each candidate place their format and answers to predefined questions on a website, then have several debates.

We decided today that since foreign policy and war is such a big issue this year that instead of a debate, Bush and Kerry should play a game of Risk or something similar and let the voters decide who has a better foreign policy based on the outcome. Well, at least people might find it more interesting...

[Dave]

I find the random insults and mud slung in these sort of debates to be rather silly. It's like reality TV on crack.

[jordan]

Where did you see mud slinging in this debate dave?

[Dave]

I meant in the American TV debate that is customary between the guy hoping to get re-elected and his main rival. It's all very dirty and not much of a debate at all.

[john5746]

Yes, it is all pretty stupid, but in a land where reality TV rules and celebrities are looked upon as experts, well you need something quick and easy to understand.

 

With the voting system we have now, there should be only two candidates in the final election. Nader should not be allowed to run. He can't even win a state.