It is a little disturbing for democracy. One candidate could win with some rules and lose with others.
Comment: Saari is no voting methods expert, because he shuns well established facts on this issue and makes an absurd and unfounded case for Borda voting, which is incredibly susceptible to strategic voting.
Range Voting is the better simpler alternative.
Comment: QUESTION: Does Hillary's Health Care Plan cover SUICIDE PREVENTION in the United States Armed Forces????
What no one is talking about is the impact of Hillary Clinton's lack of serious judgment. The Army has reported that 121 Soldiers committed Suicide, with over 2000 attempts in 2007. The stress of long tours in Iraq has forced some young men and women to take their own destiny in hand.
Hillary voted for this war... why isnt she apologizing to all parents who lost their children, either by enemy fire, friendly fire or suicide? She would not admit that she failed in judgment. OBAMA knew the war was wrong, and there was no clear strategy for the U.S. to exit out of Iraq when the mission was completed.
THE TRUTH is that Senator Dick Durbin admitted on the Senate Floor that members of the Intelligence Committee KNEW that President Bush and Dick Cheney were going to war on false pretences. John Edwards, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time, voted for the war as well. You can watch at the following LINK the statement by Senator Dick Durbin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyonYGeyFb4
Some members of the Intelligence Committee voted AGAINST the War. Why wasnt Hillary's eyes open? She admits in the Senate that she SAW the Intelligence reports: WATCH HER HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
And on top of all these Suicides, McCain wants to keep them there for 100 years? If Iranians, Al Queda or the insurgents dont kill our troops, they will kill themselves. Not to mention that Al Queda was NEVER in Iraq before Bush, McCain and Clinton Invaded Iraq. But all three wanted Saddam Hussien out of Power and they wanted control of billions of dollars in Oil.
SHAME ON HILLARY CLINTON! Part of Being President is being Accountable!!! Take responsibility for your vote to "Authorize Military Force on Iraq" and finally admit that you were WRONG!
John McCain - This time you have left men behind... to die at their own hand.
Comment: Mathematicians like Saari and political theorists like Brams consider only the conceptual criteria that can be studied in a deductive, a priori framework. Note that the web poll linked in this article does not include instant runoff voting (IRV). Instead the ranked ballot method there is the Borda count, which requires every voter to rank every candidate and is therefore useless in public elections. But IRV is <strong>the</strong> practical solution to vote splitting and spoiler candidacies. Math is nice, but reforms that will work in practice are even nicer.
Comment: IRV and traditional runoffs are unsuitable for use in partisan elections because of the center-squeeze effect. In a three-way race where the candidates fall into a left-center-right arrangement, where the left and right candidates aren't too close to the fringe, then all else being equal the centrist will be eliminated in the first round.
The approval voting method favored by Brams doesn't have this problem. Approval voting is also much simpler than IRV, and doesn't require IRV's expensive and complicated ranked ballots.
Comment: IRV and traditional runoffs are unsuitable for use in partisan elections because of the center-squeeze effect. In a three-way race where the candidates fall into a left-center-right arrangement, where the left and right candidates aren't too close to the fringe, then all else being equal the centrist will be eliminated in the first round.
The approval voting method favored by Brams doesn't have this problem. Approval voting is also much simpler than IRV, and doesn't require IRV's expensive and complicated ranked ballots.
Comment: The middle class has been the victim of corporate indoctrination. Stay StuPid. They do not want you to double your money they want you to double their money. Every middle class family should be able to do compound interest problems in their heads. It can be learned in grade two. It is a very useful skill to have because it gives you a lightning fast benchmark to determine how good (or not so good) a potential investment is likely to be.
The rule says that to find the number of years required to double your money at a given interest rate, you just divide the interest rate into 72. For example, if you want to know how long it will take to double your money at eight percent interest, divide 8 into 72 and get 9 years. If the Middle Class can make better financial decisions it would have a profound affect on the economy.
The rule A stronger middle class will make the rich richer in the long run and helP uPlift the Poor
Comment: An excellent rational analysis of the unintended consequences of the way we elect public servants. However, the cynic in me says that rational arguments rarely are persuasive. The challenge is, how do we go about producing citizens that find rational arguments persuasive.
Comment: An excellent rational analysis of the unintended consequences of the way we elect public servants. However, the cynic in me says that rational arguments rarely are persuasive. The challenge is, how do we go about producing citizens that find rational arguments persuasive.
Comment: When I read articles of this nature, I often harken back to my early education days for an OBVIOUS solution. I can assure you all that if one simple change were to be made, I could guarantee not only a plurality but an absolute majority.
Simply provide the option of selecting "none of the above". This would provide those of us who believe ALL of the choices offered are unacceptable, rather then the usual course for those who feel disenfranchised, which is to not register any vote at all.
Comment: So, it is a fact that White Women have benefited the most from civil rights legislation and hold high ranking positions throughtout American society. Hillary Clinton represents a faction of the civil rights movement and Obama another. Hillary's faction has proven to be stronger. And ironically her faction is the one that benefited the most from civil rights. . Obama's x factor is not race but unity. What brings unity, economic success for the average JOE.
There is only one unifying issue in this country and that is the ECONOMY, mONEY, DOLLARS, and that is why women with children are coming out in record numbers to support Hillary. They believe that Hillary can directly address their soccer mom concerns, education, health care and the economy.
Obama can counter this by proposing sweeping middle class tax cuts. Hillary Clinton has not been specific on this issue. If the MIDDLE CLASS FEELS THAT OBAMA can actually imPlement a middle class revolution then race will no longer be a factor and Obama will be able to cross over and take a chunk of the white vote. THis revolution would include dealing with outsourcing, programs for the middle class that show them how to save, invest, plan and avioid debt. These subjects are not taught in school.WHY?
The middle class has been the victim of corporate indoctrination. Stay StuPid. They do not want you to double your money they want you to double their money. Every middle class family should be able to do compound interest problems in their heads. It can be learned in grade two. It is a very useful skill to have because it gives you a lightning fast benchmark to determine how good (or not so good) a potential investment is likely to be.
The rule says that to find the number of years required to double your money at a given interest rate, you just divide the interest rate into 72. For example, if you want to know how long it will take to double your money at eight percent interest, divide 8 into 72 and get 9 years. If the Middle Class can make better financial decisions it would have a profound affect on the economy.
The rule A stronger middle class will make the rich richer in the long run and helP uPlift the Poor.
Comment: IT is OBVIOUS that the DEMCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT KNOWs THAT OBAMA is the CANDIDATE with the BEST CHANCE to win in NOVEMBER. EVERY statistic and poll supports this fact The DEMOCRATIC party cannot risk losing the WHITE HOUSE. The only obstacle standing in OBAMA's way is the LATINO VOTE.
THE CLINTON"S ARE JUST TO polarizing. Too many scandals, to many investigations. I do not believe they are guilty in all those scandals I just believe AMERICA needs a change from the establishment. We do not need a years worth of divisive campaigning. IT would be amazing to see McCain vs OBAMA. A GOOD CLEAN HEAVY WEIGHT FIGHT. NO ONE GETS THEIR EAR BIT OFF. A ROMNEY CAMpaign would be just like BUSH'S very divisive and full of lies. IF AMERICA CHOOSES THESE TWO CANDIDATES to represent their respective parties then I think the AMERICAN political process can begin to heal and set an example to the rest of the world. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE WE SENDING IRAQIS and AFGHANS. IF we promote racial divide why shoud they give us the benefit of the doubt concerning ABU GRADE and BLACK WATER. ARE WE REALLY RACIST CAN IT BE THAT THE CLINTON"S ARE A REFLECTION OF OUR SOCIETY. DIVIDE people so we the CLINTON'S can attain the power we are entitled too and so rightfully deserve after my conduct in the OVAL OFFICE. No one else is capable of being president. I will become nasty and play the race card because the "MEDIA" is trying to take away the presidency from me and my wife.
OBAMA HAS TO GAIN GROUND WITH THE LATINO VOTE. HE NEEDS TO BLITZ THE LATINO"S WITH COMMERCIALS OF ECONOMIC prosperity.
Comment: The problem is that these rules have been around for a long time and have produced some real outstanding presidentsTR, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Wilson, etc etc. etc. When people start talking about how the rules "distort" the peoples rules these people are invariably on the losing side. An example in recent history are the 2000 and 2004 elections. The people in 2000 who were complaining that Gore lost but received 50.1% of the vote were those that were complaining that Kerry didn't win in 2004 (They conveniently neglected to add that, even with Ohio, Kerry would have prevailed with less than 50.1% of the votes cast)% I voted for both Gore and Kerry, but I am loath to upend the Constitution to address back-to-back historical artifacts of a system that has worked remarkably well for 100+ years. These defects are glaring because we have the statistical and demographic ability to really over analyze what are usual events. For most of the history of the Republic, closemulti-candidate elections are the exception, not the rule. We should legislate accordingly. If a Presdent Obama or Edwards wins by a landslide in 2012, progressives will regret muddying the waters by "fixing" the national election system.
Comment: The problem is that these rules have been around for a long time and have produced some real outstanding presidentsTR, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Wilson, etc etc. etc. When people start talking about how the rules "distort" the peoples rules these people are invariably on the losing side. An example in recent history are the 2000 and 2004 elections. The people in 2000 who were complaining that Gore lost but received 50.1% of the vote were those that were complaining that Kerry didn't win in 2004 (They conveniently neglected to add that, even with Ohio, Kerry would have prevailed with less than 50.1% of the votes cast)% I voted for both Gore and Kerry, but I am loath to upend the Constitution to address back-to-back historical artifacts of a system that has worked remarkably well for 100+ years. These defects are glaring because we have the statistical and demographic ability to really over analyze what are usual events. For most of the history of the Republic, closemulti-candidate elections are the exception, not the rule. We should legislate accordingly. If a Presdent Obama or Edwards wins by a landslide in 2012, progressives will regret muddying the waters by "fixing" the national election system.
Comment: While important, we need to go further. Adopt an alternative voting method that eliminates plurality voting, then hold an open primary for candidates of all parties, and allow the top 6-10 candidates into the general election. Then you might end up with 3 or 4 candidates from each major party, and a couple of others. Instead of having to be the most electable conservative or liberal to survive the current primary process, candidates would have to focus on being the best All-American candidate and need to generate a large amount of support nationwide instead of being able to get on the ballot with the support of 10-20% of the country. Candidates currently seen as unelectable become viable because people that won't risk voting for them under the current rules would give them support. Polling would have to change to reflect the fact that people could vote for multiple candidates which might make candidates with large amounts of second choice support or popular 'unelectable' candidates popular in the polls, and give them a real shot at winning. While this might be old news as gerardw mentions, this is a critically important issue that needs to be addressed and brought to the spotlight because far too few of the electorate realize what an important issue this is.
Comment: This is old news: See 2003 Science News article:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070721/mathtrek.asp
Comment: An interesting note: The Huckabee drop-out in the hypothetical probably produces the correct winner if you are looking for the candidate with the most overall favorability. Although your hypothetical assigns Romney as the least favorite because he has the least number one finishes, and McCain as the most favorite because he has the most number one finishes, what happens if you average a candidate's favorability by giving them points for coming in second place? Assign a canditate 4 points for being the most preferred, 3 points for each voter who views them as second most preferred, 2 points for third, and 1 point for least preferred. Under the hypothetical in this article, Romney would be in first place with 88 total favorability points, Huckabee would come in second with 84, Guiliani would be third with 71, and McCain last with 57. This is a perfect explanation as to how McCain is able to lead in a conservative race when the field is split four different ways, when many don't view him as a "true conservative." Under the current system he would win, when he actually has the narrowest appeal to the broad base of voters!! The Ralph Nader phenomenon may be doing to the Republican primaries precisely what it did to the 2000 general election.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
