The ‘Hot or Not’ Solution

A mathematical—but controversial—idea for fixing the flaws in voting.

By Steven Levy | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Dec 17, 2007 | Updated: 5:57  p.m. ET Dec 17, 2007

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: UniqueContent @ 02/15/2008 2:26:28 PM

    Indeed, we may not get the most popular candidate at times. However, any time that we have an orderly change of government from one president (or congress for that matter) to another, we are all winners.

    Best wishes,
    Ron

    ==========
    http://endlessfreeplr.com

  • Posted By: John Luma @ 12/27/2007 1:57:47 PM

    Yes, when three candidates run for the same office, those whose policies and promises are closest do split their "common" vote -- and the second-place candidate wins. This is what the Dems did in 2000 and in 2004 between Gore and Nadar and Kerry and Nadar -- and Bush Jr. became President. Not only do third party candidates never win, they distort and destroy the will of the people. So while it's great to have more people register as Independents, it's worse to present them with more than two candidates.

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/19/2007 9:51:09 AM

    It is not the 'voting system' which produces the two party system (though we do currently have more than two parties) but the political system. A third party candidate will be completely useless unless they can not only win the White House but get a small majority in the House and Senate. A Third Party President can quack all they want, but unless they have 'associates' in the House and Senate to move legislation along, they will produce nothing but wind.

    Third, and even fourth and fifth parties are setting their sights too high. Start winning local and state elections, followed with Congress before you try and hit one out of the park. To change the system you must first be a part of it. Wether you are pushing chads, touch screens or popularity contests like range voting, you need allies before you take on your enemies.

    • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:41:10 PM

      dewcooper: It is indeed the voting system which produces the two-party system. You need to learn about Duverger's law. Most countries with a runoff system (not "instant" runoff) have escaped duopoly, for example. All the other hurdles like ballot access are minor compared to the flaws with the voting method. If we had a respectable voting method, there's no reason third party candidates or independents couldn't have every chance at winning. Every single person who supported them could vote for them - safely. Then they could still show support for second favorites, so as to minimize the chance of getting the "greater evil".

    • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/19/2007 12:10:47 PM

      dewcooper said: It is not the 'voting system' which produces the two party system (though we do currently have more than two parties) but the political system.

      you might be surprised at how much the voting system affects this. Imagine for a moment that there were a dozen significant parties on the left, while the right had all combined into the republican party. When you go to vote, there is only one candidate on the ballot that represents the conservative side, while there are a whole bunch on the liberal side.

      The conservative candidate would win every time under a plurality system, because the vote on the left would be split among so many candidates.

      Parties don't tend to get a lot of support if they never win. So the people one the left would tend to cluster into a party as well, agreeing to present one candidate rather than a bunch. This would give them a better chance of winning, and in turn give them power.

      Don't underestimate the importance of this.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/19/2007 1:24:32 PM

        I love how all of the examples make Repulicans out to be closed-minded party-liners and the rest of America as open minded and deep thinkers. Didn't Perot steal votes from Bush, Sr? Did he get Dem votes who normally vote Rep, or Rep votes? On the other hand, these examples are showing the fractured state of the Dem party...

        My point is, it is not about HOW people are elected but what they can do once elected. The General election aside, it is much easier, regardless of the system, to get elected at the state and local level. Many of these election do have multiple party nomanies on the ballot during the primaries, and the vote comes out just fine.

  • Posted By: Jace @ 12/19/2007 1:37:57 PM

    I like the idea of range or score voting, but good luck trying to work that into Art. II, sec. 1 of the Constitution. The rangevoting.org summarizes that "[r]ange voting is fine with the US constitution." Then, rather than address the constitutionality of range voting, it discusses how range voting would probably be ok with Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln. Last time I checked, Washington was the only one of the three that was a framer of the Constitution, and who cares what he thought anyway. The Constitution is a document, not a idea. I would be in favor of constitutionalizing range voting, but good luck with that one.

    • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:36:49 PM

      Jace, Range Voting is perfectly Constitutional, as that page explains. It also gives anecdotes about how early American presidents apparently were perfectly well aware that the Constitution does not proscribe alternative voting methods (although proportional representation is forbidden at the federal level for Congress).

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/19/2007 1:44:27 PM

    Here is an interesting question: In the 0-5 scale, is the 0 a non-vote or a counted vote? For example, If Candidate A received a 5 and a 4, his range is a 4.5. However, if Candidate B recieves a 5 and a 0, his range is 2.5, and not 5.

    Also, in the range system, it is still possible to have a candidate elected with a less-than favorable rating, ie., less than say a 3. Isn't this the same as electing a candidate with a less than a majority of votes?

    • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:32:41 PM

      dewcooper:

      A 0 is a 0. But you can allow Range Voting with an "abstain" option, which doesn't affect the average. If you do that, you need to have a quorum rule like, if you don't get at least half as much total score as the candidate with the most, you are not eligible to win. That means you can't get a perfect 10 from 3 people and win with a total of 30 points - that would be disastrous of course.

      The winner should be the candidate with the highest score, no matter what it is. The idea that a candidate in our current system should get a "majority of votes" is rather simplified and unscientific to begin with. Presumably the idea is that, the candidate who wins should be preferred by a majority to his rivals (whereas vote splitting can prevent the election of a candidate like Gore, who was preferred head-to-head against Bush and Nader). Check out RangeVoting.org and read about the idea of a Condorcet winner, as well as the concept of Bayesian regret. That should help explain this better.

  • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:24:56 PM

    dewcooper: Any voting method that follow's Duverger's law, generally leads to two-party duopoly. The problem is that anyone knows a vote for a minor party or independent candidate is more likely to be wasted than to accomplish anything. Thus it is strategically "forced" to vote for your favorite of the two major party candidates - and then you get locked into two-party domination. By contrast, most of the 27 countries that use a plurality+runoff system (a runoff is held if no one gets at least 50% of the votes) have escaped duopoly. It's all about the voting method. With Range Voting, you can "safely" vote for your favorite candidate, no matter what. Voting for Nader doesn't stop you from expressing your preference for Gore over Bush (or vice versa).

  • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:24:35 PM

    dewcooper: Any voting method that follow's Duverger's law, generally leads to two-party duopoly. The problem is that anyone knows a vote for a minor party or independent candidate is more likely to be wasted than to accomplish anything. Thus it is strategically "forced" to vote for your favorite of the two major party candidates - and then you get locked into two-party domination. By contrast, most of the 27 countries that use a plurality+runoff system (a runoff is held if no one gets at least 50% of the votes) have escaped duopoly. It's all about the voting method. With Range Voting, you can "safely" vote for your favorite candidate, no matter what. Voting for Nader doesn't stop you from expressing your preference for Gore over Bush (or vice versa).

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 12/19/2007 5:06:03 PM

    There seems to be general agreement that our two party system is not serving us well. Will someone please send me some of whatever you've been smoking to cause you to believe that the two parties which we don't like and who control the process necessary to change the rules would ever facilitate such a change. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!! The closest we will ever get is for the two parties to change the rules to further emasculate the prospects for any outside competition. Light up and chill out.

  • Posted By: zencowboy @ 12/19/2007 3:35:36 PM

    SOMETHING has to change. whether it's this or Instant Runoff Voting, I don't know, but either one would at least allow the possibility of creating a viable multiple party system instead of this crap of having to vote for either of two sides of the same freakin' coin.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/19/2007 3:53:07 PM

      What in the current system forces you to vote for only one of the two partys? In the last couple of elections there have been multiply choices...

  • Posted By: chanceor @ 12/19/2007 3:01:02 PM

    Nothing special about this 'new' idea, both college and pro sports have been using it for years. That being said, I prefer this method over the current 1 and done.

  • Posted By: chanceor @ 12/19/2007 3:00:02 PM

    Nothing special about this, it's what college and pro sports have been using for years. I would however prefer it to the current system.

  • Posted By: reddawnz @ 12/19/2007 11:11:57 AM

    ummm.... i'm a republican but voted for nader because i couldn't stand W. I don't think you can make the assumption in your article that nader voters would deffinately be for gore.

    • Posted By: jaywhoo @ 12/19/2007 2:50:13 PM

      I agree with you entirely. To the other posters; you cannot speculate about the Nader supporters wouldnt vote for Bush. In the last 25 years there has not been one poll, Gallop nor Straw type poll that has been accurate. 80% have been down right incorrect- google it if you dont beleive me. You cannot assume anything, and by assuming makes your point invalid. Voting is black and white, a vote, a solidary opinion that cannot be construed one way or the other. Either a yes or a no. How soon we forget that the so called Nader voters didnt agree with Gore, hence not voting for him, but rather make their statement by giving their vote to an impossible victory. The problem is the popular vote in comparison to how Bush elected (forgoing the rigged election etc. etc.) If we fix the popular vote, as the only vote, the true vote;the vote of the people problems will be minimal. The caucuses is another horse that needs to shot dead; two days of voting. The first National caucus, a few months later the Presidential vote. One citizen, one vote.

    • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/19/2007 12:13:42 PM

      reddawnz said: ummm.... i'm a republican but voted for nader because i couldn't stand W. I don't think you can make the assumption in your article that nader voters would deffinately be for gore.

      I think its a fair assumption that Nader drew more away from Gore than he did from Bush.

      Regardless, imagine if not only Nader was on the ballot, but all the Democratic candidates that were eliminated at the primaries. This is actually the bigger problem...the clustering into parties to gain a strategic advantage results in government paralyzed by partisanship

  • Posted By: hrhJAM @ 12/19/2007 12:09:19 PM

    It appears as though you are implying that the voting mind is merely balck and white: that every voter must support either a Democratic canidate or a Republican canidate. Is it beyond the realm of comprehension for you to assume that someone actually WANTED Nader to become president? I understand that a third party electorate has not been, historically speaking, a likely winner in such an election - but there are numerous voters that support the reform of our current organizations. Not to say that Nader was the the correct canidate by any means, but to suggest that he was merely a "spoiler" is relatively ignorant, honestly.

    • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/19/2007 12:17:05 PM

      hrhJAM said: Not to say that Nader was the the correct canidate by any means, but to suggest that he was merely a "spoiler" is relatively ignorant, honestly.

      Nobody debates that some people liked Nader best. (I did, but voted for Gore)

      The point is that IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, Nader's running distorts the vote and results in bad things. People want to change this system, so that people like Nader CAN run without screwing things up. In fact, someone like Nader would be much more likely to win if people knew that voting for him might cause more harm than good.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/19/2007 1:28:02 PM

        Would you be claiming that 'bad things' happen with the third party candidate if Gore had won? Do you think Perot distorted the vote and screwed things up, since that is how Clinton won?

  • Posted By: alberts_folly @ 12/19/2007 1:10:58 PM

    I like this idea! But, why wait 50 years when I'm either dead or too old to know the difference? For the record, this is how I would vote in either primary (0-5): Huckabee (4), Paul (2), McCain (1), other Rep. (0). On the other side: Biden (4), Obama (3), Clinton (1), other Dem. (0). This is actually more fun than holding your nose and throwing a lever. Let's do this!

  • Posted By: hrhJAM @ 12/19/2007 12:10:13 PM

    It appears as though you are implying that the voting mind is merely balck and white: that every voter must support either a Democratic canidate or a Republican canidate. Is it beyond the realm of comprehension for you to assume that someone actually WANTED Nader to become president? I understand that a third party electorate has not been, historically speaking, a likely winner in such an election - but there are numerous voters that support the reform of our current organizations. Not to say that Nader was the the correct canidate by any means, but to suggest that he was merely a "spoiler" is relatively ignorant, honestly.

  • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/18/2007 4:58:19 PM

    misterharban said: And I suspect that in each ccase the voters who selected them got exactly the choice they wanted.

    Well, I know for a fact that there are lots and lots of people who voted for Nader that wished they hadn't.

    You are doing what Brokenladder does, suggesting that a punishment that is applied to all of society (i.e. illogical candidates elected, the two party system with all its partisan bickering, etc) will serve as a deterrent to individuals.

    Individuals tend to try to advance their own interests, but often in poorly designed systems, everyone is worse off when that happens. It seems like a paradox at first, but it is very very real. Google "prisoner's dilemma".

    • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/18/2007 7:49:15 PM

      misterharban said: "let the parties trim their sails to accommodate the wind rather than shake their fists at the wind which they will likely never be able to change."

      The two big parties aren't going to do anything about this, they are the ones that benefit from the current system. It is the people like me who think that the two party system are the main problem. (or, maybe I should say, "a voting system which results in a two party system" is the main problem)

      • Posted By: misterharban @ 12/18/2007 8:48:39 PM

        To say the very least I am not a fan of the two party monster under which we live. I see absolutely nothing in the range voting proposal, however, which would weaken their grip on us. In fact, it appears to me that range voting is simply a way of having third party candidates without having third party candidates. It seems to me to say go ahead and vote for your nut job, but also tell us who you really want your vote cast for.

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 12/18/2007 6:12:47 PM

      I voted for Clinton and ultimately wished I hadn't. So what? Do I get a do over? I don???t think so. How anyone votes is not a punishment for someone else. It is a right that each of us has and it is not the place of you or anyone else to compel someone to do any particular thing with their franchise, even to do something stupid with it. I am sure that nearly 100 percent of the country thinks that nearly 50 percent of the country did something stupid with their votes in 2000 and 2004. It is easy to scapegoat Nader-type third parties. The truth is more harm was done by stupid Republicans voting for Bush than stupid Naderites voting for Nader. Each person got what they wanted, or at the very least, what they deserved. The Democrats were not especially entitled to the votes that were cast for Nader. They had to earn them and they did not. The votes you get from stupid people count just the same as the votes you get from the people who are smart like you. Maybe the Democrats could do well to understand that everyone who doesn???t share their party purity is not stupid, and even if they are, their votes still count.

      I am an Independent rooting for the Democrats to either elect whomever they wish this cycle or be creamed beyond recognition so we can put an end to all of the bellyaching over how everyone and every thing beat them except themselves. The simple truth is in 2000 and 2004 that they beat themselves. All they ever had to do is nominate someone who had even a little more of a pulse than the dead meat they nominated during those cycles. You may subscribe to the theory that we are forever locked in a cycle where close elections are inevitable. If either party spent one half as much time working on a thoughtful way to serve the needs of a broader cross section of the American people rather than trying to game the system to preserve their political purity we would likely have an election, much like many in the past, where the margins left no doubt as to the winner. Both parties seem content to not compromise their purity even at the risk of close outcomes. If they will not take that risk, they both deserve the uncertainty and instability that results from their unwillingness to cut anybody on the other side of 50 percent any slack.

      Put simply, let the parties trim their sails to accommodate the wind rather than shake their fists at the wind which they will likely never be able to change.

  • Posted By: BubbaDownSouth @ 12/18/2007 2:30:45 PM

    Catbutt said:.
    " No, um, third party candidates ARE spoilers, assuming they are seen as similar (in platform) to another candidate. Saying otherwise just means you haven't thought about it, because it isn't complicated..
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have thought about it.
    It seems you just want a Dem-Repub election where the Democrat will win every time.
    You are not too big on Democracy by wanting to limit participation of non Democrats. I bet former Repubs would be welcome to have a third party candidate in your world.

    • Posted By: catbutt @ 12/18/2007 2:43:40 PM

      BubbaDownSouth said :" I have thought about it.
      It seems you just want a Dem-Repub election where the Democrat will win every time."

      I can't figure how you read that into what I said.

      I want both the Republican and Democrat parties to become less influencial, and other parties, and independant candidates, can compete. This would happen with the elimination of the spoiler effect.

      BTW, a spoiler candidate may have given the election of 1992 to the democrats. (perot/clinton/bush) So this is not a partisan issue for me. I am anti-partisanship far more strongly than I am anti-republican.

      • Posted By: misterharban @ 12/18/2007 4:23:28 PM

        Perhaps you can explain how this system makes it more possible for independent candidates to compete. It looks to me like range voting, at least in the cases we have seen in my lifetime i.e. Wallace, Perot and Nader would simply have the effect of rendering these kinds of candidates irrelevant. Votes for these characters may or may not have spoiled outcomes, but they were the free choices of the voters who cast them. And IIsuuspect that in each ccase the voters who selected them got exactly the choice they wanted.

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 12/18/2007 4:17:05 PM

    Listen guys. It is great that you can understand the range voting concept well enough to advocate for it and even to understand its implications. Is there anyone out there who really believes that folks like the ones in Florida that could not understand a relatively simple punch ballot could understand both how to vote under this system and what the implications might be for how they would vote? Give me a break. It is widely believed that the position of the name of a candidate on a ballot can influence the choice a voter will make. And all that is required in a case like this is a simple decision to remember and mark a single name. Throwing in additional choices may be useful for the wonks who think they understand and are advocating this system. It would only obscure the wishes of those who would simply be confused by it.

    It is interesting that many countries around the world get along quite nicely with a simple system of a free for all primary followed shortly by a run off between the top two candidates. Sure it can be gamed. Contrary to what many seem to believe here, range voting can be gamed to the extent that savvy politicians persuade ignorant voters how to make their choices. It would be interesting to know what the outcome of recent elections would have been in the absence of the pervasive practice of picking up rum dumb derelicts, giving them a little food or drink, driving them to polling places and telling them how to mark the ballot. Whatever your motivation is for supporting range voting, please do not pretend that it would eliminate or even reduce the total impact of gaming on our electoral system. It would simply change the way the gaming is done.

  • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/18/2007 2:48:10 PM

    BubbaDownSouth:

    "One person, one vote" is a phrase from the civil rights era, and implies than every person should have the same equal-strength ballot, regardless of race, class, gender, or what have you. It is not a legal proscription against alternative voting methods which allow us to vote for more than one candidate. Range Voting is perfectly legal.

    • Posted By: BubbaDownSouth @ 12/18/2007 3:05:50 PM

      Brokenladder,
      I have not said I am against range voting. I love voting. I go to the polls every election.
      I would still go with range voting procedures.
      One person, one vote did not come from the civil rights era, it came from the Greek city-state governments thousands of years ago.

  • Posted By: BubbaDownSouth @ 12/18/2007 2:59:51 PM

    Catbutt said:

    Anyway, here is shorter (and hppefully easier to understant) version of my complaint about Range voting being susceptable to vote splitting...

    Without Nader in the race, I might vote:
    Gore: 100
    Bush: 0

    With Nader in the race, I might vote:
    Nader: 100
    Gore: 75
    Bush: 0

    A Bush voter would have likely done this:

    Without Nader:
    Gore: 0
    Bush: 100

    With Nader:
    Nader: 0
    Gore: 0
    Bush: 100


    So with me and the Bush fan, it would have been a tie in the first case, but with Nader, Bush wins.

    How in the world is that not vote splitting?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Catbutt, in your example sited above:
    Without Nader, the totals are Gore 100, Bush 100 - a tie
    With Nader, the totals are Nader 100, Bush 100 and Gore 75. Nader and Bush tie.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse