E-Democracy

[Adios]

Does not compute.

I'm at a loss for how I can be clearer.

Have you tried the wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

I understand what you are trying to say, I just think it's bullshit.

[LMNO]

Ok, let's take an example.  The ballot looks like this:

_Obama (Democrats candidate)
_GW Bush (Republicans candidate)
_Lefty Wingbat
_Right Nutcase
_Greeny McGreenpants
_Glorious Faggot
_Fascist Bullyboy
_Darkie Killer
_Mohammed Mohammed


If you're going to vote for more than one person, you're going to vote for your personal cause, and then for one of the top two mainstream choices.

So, it all but guarantees that whoever leads the media leads the polls, and whoever leads the polls will be chosen along with whatever minor issue candidate you pick.

[Doktor Howl]

Does not compute.

I'm at a loss for how I can be clearer.

Have you tried the wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

I understand what you are trying to say, I just think it's bullshit.

THEN YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY AN ENEMY OF ALL FORMS OF DEMOCRACY.

[Jasper]

Okay, so we have 100 voters.

20% are dem
20% are gop
35% are swing
5% are Perot/Nader idiots.

20 vote dem, because they are partisan.
20 vote gop, because they are partisan.
35 vote dem or GOP, with a few voting for the 3rd party freaks as well.
5 vote for 3rd party freaks only.

The end results are the same.

Except those partisan voters probably aren't as loyal as they thought they were, when they realize they can have their cake and eat it too.  The implementation wouldn't likely change everything in one voting cycle, but I see that as a benefit.

Your basic notion being that no kind of democratic representation can reasonably guide a nation's interests.

What the FUCK?

My bad, that's just a premise I seem to have misread in your arguments.  I take that back, but everything else I stand by.  

[Adios]

Ok, let's take an example.  The ballot looks like this:

_Obama (Democrats candidate)
_GW Bush (Republicans candidate)
_Lefty Wingbat
_Right Nutcase
_Greeny McGreenpants
_Glorious Faggot
_Fascist Bullyboy
_Darkie Killer
_Mohammed Mohammed


If you're going to vote for more than one person, you're going to vote for your personal cause, and then for one of the top two mainstream choices.

So, it all but guarantees that whoever leads the media leads the polls, and whoever leads the polls will be chosen along with whatever minor issue candidate you pick.

And in the process you cancel your own vote out.

[Adios]

Does not compute.

I'm at a loss for how I can be clearer.

Have you tried the wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

I understand what you are trying to say, I just think it's bullshit.

THEN YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY AN ENEMY OF ALL FORMS OF DEMOCRACY.

Just that kind.

[Doktor Howl]

My bad, that's just a premise I seem to have misread in your arguments.  I take that back, but everything else I stand by.  

Who the fuck did you get that from my arguments?  At what point did I say anything like it?

Honestly curious, here.

[Captain Utopia]

can you give us a summary of this idea?

Updated the OP to reflect this.  Contains nothing really that I haven't already covered in a more disjointed form in other threads, but it's a good idea to put it together, and I'll modify the OP as gaping holes in the logic is found.

[Doktor Howl]

Ok, let's take an example.  The ballot looks like this:

_Obama (Democrats candidate)
_GW Bush (Republicans candidate)
_Lefty Wingbat
_Right Nutcase
_Greeny McGreenpants
_Glorious Faggot
_Fascist Bullyboy
_Darkie Killer
_Mohammed Mohammed


If you're going to vote for more than one person, you're going to vote for your personal cause, and then for one of the top two mainstream choices.

So, it all but guarantees that whoever leads the media leads the polls, and whoever leads the polls will be chosen along with whatever minor issue candidate you pick.

And in the process you cancel your own vote out.

Only if you vote for the most popular 2 at the same time.

Otherwise, your vote works precisely the way it did before, only it eliminates any chance whatsoever of a 3rd party ever achieving anything in an election other than wasting money.

[Doktor Howl]

Sounds like a pie-in-the-sky dream with no pragmatic way to get there?  State your concerns and ask your questions here and we'll see if we can find some answers.

Summary:

The basic concept is quite simple - use information technology to provide an efficient and powerful mechanism to democratically influence the direction a group takes on any or all issues which face that group.

We already have that.  It's called TV.

[Adios]

Ok, let's take an example.  The ballot looks like this:

_Obama (Democrats candidate)
_GW Bush (Republicans candidate)
_Lefty Wingbat
_Right Nutcase
_Greeny McGreenpants
_Glorious Faggot
_Fascist Bullyboy
_Darkie Killer
_Mohammed Mohammed


If you're going to vote for more than one person, you're going to vote for your personal cause, and then for one of the top two mainstream choices.

So, it all but guarantees that whoever leads the media leads the polls, and whoever leads the polls will be chosen along with whatever minor issue candidate you pick.

And in the process you cancel your own vote out.

Only if you vote for the most popular 2 at the same time.

Otherwise, your vote works precisely the way it did before, only it eliminates any chance whatsoever of a 3rd party ever achieving anything in an election other than wasting money.

That's exactly what I am trying to say. All it is is an opportunity for a 'warm fuzzy' vote that you immediately cancel out by voting for a mainstream candidate.

[Cramulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Instant Runoff voting is like approval voting, but your prioritize who you want to win.


the advantage of these systems is that they are able to compromise better than a single-vote winner-take-all race.

For example, let's say you've got

Bush
Gore
Nader

to make it really simple---
let's pretend all republicans love bush, and would prefer nader to gore.
let's pretend all democrats love gore, and would prefer nader to bush.

If they all vote nader as #2, and there isn't a clear majority for #1, then nader will probably win because he was everybody's second choice. And at least you get your second choice instead of the guy you hate.

[Doktor Howl]

tl;dr - Hey look, it's America's got Talent!

Oh, I see.  In your opinion, we're all idiots who can't read 2 pages of writing.

Well, then there's no point addressing the other paragraphs you wrote, is there?

[Jasper]

Ok, let's take an example.  The ballot looks like this:

_Obama (Democrats candidate)
_GW Bush (Republicans candidate)
_Lefty Wingbat
_Right Nutcase
_Greeny McGreenpants
_Glorious Faggot
_Fascist Bullyboy
_Darkie Killer
_Mohammed Mohammed


If you're going to vote for more than one person, you're going to vote for your personal cause, and then for one of the top two mainstream choices.

So, it all but guarantees that whoever leads the media leads the polls, and whoever leads the polls will be chosen along with whatever minor issue candidate you pick.

And in the process you cancel your own vote out.

No, because you haven't given the opposition an edge, you've just given the go-ahead for more than one candidate.

You seem to be stuck on the whole problem with the current system, being "giving votes to 3rd party candidates spoils elections".  This system doesn't have that drawback, period.

My bad, that's just a premise I seem to have misread in your arguments.  I take that back, but everything else I stand by.  

Who the fuck did you get that from my arguments?  At what point did I say anything like it?

Honestly curious, here.

Okay, I drew hasty conclusions uncharitably inferred from your statements.  

It was a mistake, I'd appreciate a bit of forgiveness.

[Doktor Howl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Instant Runoff voting is like approval voting, but your prioritize who you want to win.


the advantage of these systems is that they are able to compromise better than a single-vote winner-take-all race.

For example, let's say you've got

Bush
Gore
Nader

to make it really simple---
let's pretend all republicans love bush, and would prefer nader to gore.
let's pretend all democrats love gore, and would prefer nader to bush.

If they all vote nader as #2, and there isn't a clear majority for #1, then nader will probably win because he was everybody's second choice. And at least you get your second choice instead of the guy you hate.

Okay, I can see this being viable...Let me make sure I have it straight, though...You have to assign a priority to every candidate for your ballot to be valid?