E-Democracy

[Captain Utopia]

Concern:  What type of vote would it be?  E.g. plurality, instant runoff, approval?

I prefer the proxy-voting method.  But I also think that a group should be able to define its own method of reaching a decision.  Increased consensus is one thing all sides can agree upon as being desirable, even when they disagree on what that looks like or how to reach it.

So if a different voting method actually increased consensus, then you could test your algorithm against the votes placed in the public record and prove the benefits that way.

[Doktor Howl]

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

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

Oh, yeah, no problem with the forgiveness bit.  I'm just curious as to what I said that led you to infer that.

[Adios]

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?

I am a little dense. If only 3 people are on the ballot it might just work. Why do I suspect there would be far more than 3?

[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?

I am a little dense. If only 3 people are on the ballot it might just work. Why do I suspect there would be far more than 3?

It would get more complex the more people you had on it, yeah.  And I can see the two bigs forming teabagger-esque organizations to confuse the issue.  But it's still better than approval voting, and it would at least force the bigs to dance like monkeys, so I think I can get behind this.

[Captain Utopia]

Concern:  What type of vote would it be?  E.g. plurality, instant runoff, approval?

I'm more concerned about the mob rule factor, the only evidence of which I need offer is California's proposition 8, in which the mob decided that the law doesn't actually offer equal protection.

And, of course, similar votes in Maine, New Jersey, and Arizona, among other states.

I didn't believe Prop 8 would pass.  I'm sure there were people who would have made more of an effort to defeat it if they knew it was a danger.  In the system I'm talking about though, you'd have a voting window, during which the results would be public -- you could be forewarned of impending disaster.  If one group game to snipe the vote and swing it in the last five minutes, then the outraged majority could immediately repeal it.

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

[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.

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?

here's an example of a completed ballot:



from wikipedia:

"If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next preference on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among the remaining candidates."

[Doktor Howl]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

[Jasper]

Only if you actually want a mainstream candidate does a vote for another mainstream candidate actually harm your chances.  You could vote to approve of every candidate except the two mainstreamers.  You could vote for nobody BUT the outsider candidate you want.  

Approval doesn't just give you leeway in choosing who you want, but also who you don't because in this system you choose or not choose each candidate separately.

Here's the thing though:  If you simply check the box next to each candidate you like, you're just a lot more likely to get one of the ones you liked.  It won't leave ~49% of the voters feeling burned for 4 years, which will lead to fewer crazy people.  Which won't really help me convince Dok Howl, but...

I'm just curious as to what I said that led you to infer that.

No idea, in fairness.  I guess just the way you seem pretty sour about democracy in general.


As far as IRV goes:

http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv/

IRV is very good at preventing minor parties from interfering with the two-party system, but it is arguably no better than our current plurality system at expanding the two-party system and giving other parties a chance to actually win elections. Furthermore, if a third party ever does become strong enough under IRV to seriously threaten the two major parties, they could hurt their own cause and wreak havoc with our entire political system, just as they could under our current plurality system.

So yeah, IRV is more of a Dok Howl pick.

[Doktor Howl]

Cram, that looks too much like approval voting, if not everyone has to be ranked.

[Adios]

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?

here's an example of a completed ballot:



from wikipedia:

"If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next preference on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among the remaining candidates."

See, the ranking makes a lot more sense.

[Doktor Howl]

No idea, in fairness.  I guess just the way you seem pretty sour about democracy in general.

I'm sour on direct democracy, for very sound historical (and not so historical) reasons.  The republic we have worked fine for 200 years or so, and is only now reaching its complexity limit.

[Jasper]

No idea, in fairness.  I guess just the way you seem pretty sour about democracy in general.

I'm sour on direct democracy, for very sound historical (and not so historical) reasons.  The republic we have worked fine for 200 years or so, and is only now reaching its complexity limit.

I'm curious though; If you were interested in making things work better, what would you suggest?

[Doktor Howl]

No idea, in fairness.  I guess just the way you seem pretty sour about democracy in general.

I'm sour on direct democracy, for very sound historical (and not so historical) reasons.  The republic we have worked fine for 200 years or so, and is only now reaching its complexity limit.

I'm curious though; If you were interested in making things work better, what would you suggest?

IF I was interested in making things work better, I'd break the country into 5 pieces and let them sort it out as separate nations.  Seriously.

It wouldn't fix the problem, but it would delay the inevitable.

[Jasper]

Huh.

That would actually be kind of cool, although I worry that too many wars would break out over who gets CA.

[Captain Utopia]

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?

After all the unrequited snark and condescension thrown my way over the last few days, I thought I'd be forgiven a friendly jibe in return.  I'm sorry if anyone took it personally, and I've removed it from the OP.