OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[JRRNeiklot]

I voted. But I can't help thinking it's more useless each year. The difference between the republicrats and the demopublicans is so slight, what's the point? I voted straight libertarian this time.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

woo hoo! wolf is out the door and on his way to vote. It's easy when it's 3 short blocks away

I got you beat. I work for the County government, and the Elections department is located on the same floor as the Child Support Services (my new job, finally).

Unfortunately, given that an election was happening, I couldn't use the shortcut.

So I had to go down two floors to the street, around the corner, up two floors, and then vote. And repeat the process to get back to work.

Argh.

Still, it was easy to vote, and I already had a good parking space. And I got to help about 150 - 200 kids get money for food and clothes in the meantime. Altogether, a good day.

(And it doesn't hurt that I have a cubicle neighbor who is quite the hotty. Though they're moving me away from her in the office reshuffling to make room for two new employees. It figures. She's one of the few people to get my jokes.)

 

[MerakSpielman]

(Edit, I voted. You all should. It gives you the right to bitch and moan when things go wrong)

While we're on the topic of voting, let's start another debate (I think the electorial college one is dying down a bit).

It is generally acknowleged by most people that if Nader had not been on the presidential ballot in 2000, Gore would have won the election. This is because the election ended in what was essentially a statistical tie between Gore and Bush - Bush got the few hundred votes required (Simplification, I know). Most people who vote Green, if Green was not available, would vote Democrat. Thus, the few votes that Nader got would have enabled Gore to win. (Nader refutes this, I believe.)

This resparked the concept that voting for third-party candidates was not only throwing your vote away, but more likely to assist those you really didn't like getting into power.

I have heard, recently proposed, a voting option to allow voters to vote for a 3rd party candidate without throwing their vote away. It goes something like this (and somebody PLEASE correct the wrong bits in this. I know I don't have it entirely right):
You get to pick two candidates on the form, a first choice and a second choice. After the votes are counted, if your first choice did not do very well (in the top 2 I believe) your vote is automatically changed to your second choice. The votes are re-counted, and results are determined normally.

So, say you like the Greens, but don't want the Republicans to benefit from you voting 3rd party. You vote 1st choice Green candidate, 2nd choice Democratic candidate. When the Greens only secure 2% of the election, your vote is shifted to Democrat. No harm done.

The benefit to this is that people who want 3rd parties to represent them will not be afraid to vote with their conscience, and 3rd parties will get more than fractional amounts of the vote.

(I realize this will probably never come to pass because the current politicians in power have too much to lose to risk it, so don't bother saying it'll never happen. I know that.)

What do you all think of this concept?

 

[DM_Matt]

This WILL make more people vote for small parties, but it still won't make them any more popular. Besides, as we saw in 2000, we do NOT want voting to get any more complex than it is.

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

(Edit, I voted. You all should. It gives you the right to bitch and moan when things go wrong)

While we're on the topic of voting, let's start another debate (I think the electorial college one is dying down a bit).

It is generally acknowleged by most people that if Nader had not been on the presidential ballot in 2000, Gore would have won the election. This is because the election ended in what was essentially a statistical tie between Gore and Bush - Bush got the few hundred votes required (Simplification, I know). Most people who vote Green, if Green was not available, would vote Democrat. Thus, the few votes that Nader got would have enabled Gore to win. (Nader refutes this, I believe.)

This resparked the concept that voting for third-party candidates was not only throwing your vote away, but more likely to assist those you really didn't like getting into power.

I have heard, recently proposed, a voting option to allow voters to vote for a 3rd party candidate without throwing their vote away. It goes something like this (and somebody PLEASE correct the wrong bits in this. I know I don't have it entirely right):
You get to pick two candidates on the form, a first choice and a second choice. After the votes are counted, if your first choice did not do very well (in the top 2 I believe) your vote is automatically changed to your second choice. The votes are re-counted, and results are determined normally.

So, say you like the Greens, but don't want the Republicans to benefit from you voting 3rd party. You vote 1st choice Green candidate, 2nd choice Democratic candidate. When the Greens only secure 2% of the election, your vote is shifted to Democrat. No harm done.

The benefit to this is that people who want 3rd parties to represent them will not be afraid to vote with their conscience, and 3rd parties will get more than fractional amounts of the vote.

(I realize this will probably never come to pass because the current politicians in power have too much to lose to risk it, so don't bother saying it'll never happen. I know that.)

What do you all think of this concept?

I think what you are referring to is the concept of preferential voting, which is the system we have hear in Australia.

When you vote, you don’t just tick a box (punch a hole, whatever), you *rank* the candidates from 1 (your highest preference) on down. At the federal level and in some states you have to rank all the candidates on the ballot paper (“full preferential voting”), in some states you have the option of how many you preference so you can just vote “1” if you want to and leave the other candidates blank (“optional preferential voting”).

The “1” (“first preference”) votes are then all counted. If someone has 50% +1 vote of the total votes cast, they win. If not, the candidates with the least number of first preference votes is eliminated and the “2” (“second preference”) votes of people who voted “1” for that candidate are counted and added to the one votes of the other candidates (this is called “distributing preferences”). If this results in someone having 50% +1 vote of the total votes cast, they win; if not, you eliminate the candidate at the bottom of the list and distribute their preferences (their second preferences unless they voted for the already eliminated candidate, in which case you count their third preferences). And so on…

Voting advertisements in Australia usually read “Vote 1, Jo Bloggs”. Though in tight races, you see the major parties running adds trying to convince minor party voters to give then their second preferences.

Parties produce “How to Vote” cards which they give out on election day, suggesting the order of preferences they would like voters to vote. You don’t have to follow the recommendation of the party to which you give your first preference, but most people do. Consequently, a lot of horse trading goes on with promises being offered by the major parties to the minor ones to put their candidates higher on minor party “How to Vote” cards.

In a tight race you can sometimes see the major parties going into an environmental bidding frenzy to attract Green second preferences...

Nobody’s vote is wasted (except in optional preferential systems when you don’t vote all the way down and all the candidates you did vote for are eliminated). Nobody’s vote creates a "perverse" result (most Nader voters would have given Gore their second preference, and Florida would have gone to preferences). Minor party voters have to be factored in by the big parties and their second preferences chased.

All good in my book.

BTW, no opinion is (or should be) expressed over who did or should have won the 2000 Presidential Election. Different systems would have given different results, that's all I'm saying. Politics are forbidden on this board and I can already sense a three legged, one eyed feline getting worried...

 

[Mark Chance]

Rights, voting, and off-year elections

(Edit, I voted. You all should. It gives you the right to bitch and moan when things go wrong)

My right to "bitch and moan" is protected by the 1st Amendment, not by whether or not I vote.

What I'd like to see next off-year election is for absolutely no one to vote. That would get some serious attention from the candidates.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

This election is important, people. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

I am German. Since I can't vote in US elections, does this mean I have no right to complain about US policies?

Just wondering...

 

[robaustin]

Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

My right to "bitch and moan" is protected by the 1st Amendment, not by whether or not I vote.

What I'd like to see next off-year election is for absolutely no one to vote. That would get some serious attention from the candidates.

Actually - if more folks started using their HEAD when voting we might be better off. Our two party system really blows. Folks like to vote for a winner, or vote for one of the two big parties. Unfortunately, change is not going to come about from either of those parties at this point.

But there are many well qualified 3rd party candidates out there. If the public would take the time to educate themselves about them, and vote for them instead - even IF one of the two parties won - the amount of votes the 3rd party got - if increased - would show a certain amount of gaining support for the 3rd parties and waning support for our two big parties. THIS is the key.

But, the American public - as I say - likes to vote for either the winner, or for one of the two parties. The attitude is "well, he's probaby gonna win...why should I throw away my vote on a third party candidate who has no chance of winning?" But that's the point - the vote isn't thrown away - it's cast to someone else and shows weakening support for the big party candidate and increased support for someone whose views are closer to your own.

Much of the American public are sheep. IT's sad.

--*Rob

 

[Henry]

I am German. Since I can't vote in US elections, does this mean I have no right to complain about US policies?

Just wondering...

No, that's like the kid who lives in the same household with his family, who DOESN'T get his allowance if he didn't do his chores - the theory is he doesn't have a right to complain if he doesn't get his allowance.

If you live in the house next door, you can complain about your weird neighbors all you want...

 

[Henry]

Re: Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

But there are many well qualified 3rd party candidates out there. If the public would take the time to educate themselves about them, and vote for them instead - even IF one of the two parties won - the amount of votes the 3rd party got - if increased - would show a certain amount of gaining support for the 3rd parties and waning support for our two big parties.

Dead right, Rob. education is the key, and it shows in voter turnouts. I guarantee, if 95% of those registered to vote turned out in elections, and the results were far more three-way or even four-way than they are now, that candidates for the major parties would be more inclined to listen.

In fact, there are U.S. states out there who have rules that, if a candidate does NOT win at least 50% of the popular vote, that a runoff is held between the top two to decide. How do you take the info then, that no one candidate could even sway half the voters? If serves as a wake-up call, for sure.