Would you support Alternative voting?

Stainmaster

Rookie
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
638
Reaction score
43
Points
0
Location
Southern California
Former Governor of Minnesota, Jessie Ventura, the nation's highest ranking independent office holder in memory, spoke with Glenn Beck about Alternative voting. Here is how Wiki explains it:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the American English term for a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, most commonly in single-winner elections. Indeed, IRV can be considered a special case of single transferable vote for the case where there is a single position to be filled. 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 ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term instant runoff is used because the method is said to simulate a series of runoff elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.[1] In the contingent vote form of IRV, all but the top vote-getters are eliminated before the instant runoff.

Instant runoff voting is sometimes referred to as alternative voting, or the Alternative Vote (AV) in the United Kingdom; the preferential ballot, or preferential voting, in Canada and Australia; and ranked choice voting in the United States. It is also, more rarely, called Ware's method, after its inventor W. R. Ware.


As it was explained on Beck if you voted for Jessie Ventura for President, and he did not have enough votes, you could have recorded a second choice like for example Tom Hanks. After the elimination of the Ventura candidacy your vote would go to Hanks. If Hanks failed your vote could go elsewhere.

As an independent I heartily endorse Alternative Voting. What do you think?
 

HUGGY

I Post Because I Care
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
33,749
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,140
Location
Seattle at large...Ballard lately
Former Governor of Minnesota, Jessie Ventura, the nation's highest ranking independent office holder in memory, spoke with Glenn Beck about Alternative voting. Here is how Wiki explains it:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the American English term for a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, most commonly in single-winner elections. Indeed, IRV can be considered a special case of single transferable vote for the case where there is a single position to be filled. 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 ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term instant runoff is used because the method is said to simulate a series of runoff elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.[1] In the contingent vote form of IRV, all but the top vote-getters are eliminated before the instant runoff.

Instant runoff voting is sometimes referred to as alternative voting, or the Alternative Vote (AV) in the United Kingdom; the preferential ballot, or preferential voting, in Canada and Australia; and ranked choice voting in the United States. It is also, more rarely, called Ware's method, after its inventor W. R. Ware.


As it was explained on Beck if you voted for Jessie Ventura for President, and he did not have enough votes, you could have recorded a second choice like for example Tom Hanks. After the elimination of the Ventura candidacy your vote would go to Hanks. If Hanks failed your vote could go elsewhere.

As an independent I heartily endorse Alternative Voting. What do you think?
Voting with the exception of the theft of same by gaming the electronic voting machines is not the problem. It is not now nor ever was. Reason being that all our elected officials and repreesentatives must run for re-election and can be removed in a civil and orderly fashion. The problem is and always has been the giant gorilla in the room which is the unbalanced access that lobbiests have to manipulate our democacy with many billions of dollars in every and especially presidential election cycles and major legislation that effects our lives vs profit of multi national corporations. The tweeking of the form will not change the outcome when all that get elected get corrupted. The insidious preasure to conform to the will of the insider money is backed up with threats and action. If they need examples made they provide them. Check out Paul Wellstone's and Jon Jon's plane crash. John Kennedy's assasination.. There are numerous examples... The anthrax letters.... on and on. These people play hard ball. I'm not trying to go off on some stupid conspiracy ...just pointing out that wolves, jackals and hyenas ...do what they do. The only real and serious way to free our government from the tentacles of these vermin is to chop them off literally, slit thier throats and bleed them out. Nothing short of that will ever change a goddamn thing. You can dance a little jig and change a handfull of election outcomes and the same billions will be there waiting for whomever you chose.
 
Last edited:

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,307
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
I don't think it'll ever happen.

But I think it would be interesting to see. I'd be for it.
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
Overly complex.

Plenty of potenial for abuse.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But what kind of abuse do you see happening?
Claims of miscounts, hanging chad type arguments, that people 'misunderstood' who they were voting for, ect.

Unless a system is super simple you can count on it confusing a significant amount of voters.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
I would support a system where you have a number of votes equivalent to the number of candidates. If you feel meh about the candidate you prefer, you just give him one vote and toss the other. If there are 3 candidates, and there are two you would go for and one you hate, you can give one candidate two votes, one, one, and skip the third guy.

Thing is, you could spread the love equal to the degree of love you have.

Solves the problem of the third party guy popular among all moderates shipping power over to worse weasel in a three man race.
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,307
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Overly complex.

Plenty of potenial for abuse.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But what kind of abuse do you see happening?
Claims of miscounts, hanging chad type arguments, that people 'misunderstood' who they were voting for, ect.

Unless a system is super simple you can count on it confusing a significant amount of voters.
I'll agree that it's certain to confuse many people initially. But I think a system could be designed to make it fairly simple - more simple than the chap punch paper ballots.
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But what kind of abuse do you see happening?
Claims of miscounts, hanging chad type arguments, that people 'misunderstood' who they were voting for, ect.

Unless a system is super simple you can count on it confusing a significant amount of voters.
I'll agree that it's certain to confuse many people initially. But I think a system could be designed to make it fairly simple - more simple than the chap punch paper ballots.
I believe there might also be constitutional issues with it, but not an expert on that.

An interesting sidebar, the loser of a POTUS election became vice president in the early elections.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
It works okay here, but then we also have compulsory voting and I reckon that won't run in the US. It's not difficult to manage, we have independent electoral commissions at the federal and state/territory levels to run it, politicians have no say in it at all. Parties - and we, like Canada, have a multi-party system although only two parties are every going to form government some minority governments have been formed by bringing in third parties - parties can hand out "how to vote" cards which list suggested preferences. If a competition is tight it can go to preference distribution for a seat ("riding" in Canada) to be declared.

Tasmania has a complex system - the Hare-Clark system which I don't know a lot about. New Zealand has an even more complex system which I know even less about.

Hare Clark Explained. Antony Green Election Guide. Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC).
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,307
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Claims of miscounts, hanging chad type arguments, that people 'misunderstood' who they were voting for, ect.

Unless a system is super simple you can count on it confusing a significant amount of voters.
I'll agree that it's certain to confuse many people initially. But I think a system could be designed to make it fairly simple - more simple than the chap punch paper ballots.
I believe there might also be constitutional issues with it, but not an expert on that.

An interesting sidebar, the loser of a POTUS election became vice president in the early elections.
I know. Now wouldn't that be interesting?
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
I'll agree that it's certain to confuse many people initially. But I think a system could be designed to make it fairly simple - more simple than the chap punch paper ballots.
I believe there might also be constitutional issues with it, but not an expert on that.

An interesting sidebar, the loser of a POTUS election became vice president in the early elections.
I know. Now wouldn't that be interesting?
Barry's life would be different if McCain was VP, that's for sure.

That system caused people like John Adams a lot of trouble when he was president.
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,307
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
I believe there might also be constitutional issues with it, but not an expert on that.

An interesting sidebar, the loser of a POTUS election became vice president in the early elections.
I know. Now wouldn't that be interesting?
Barry's life would be different if McCain was VP, that's for sure.

That system caused people like John Adams a lot of trouble when he was president.
Imagine if Lyndon Johnson's VP was Goldwater.

Now that would be interesting...
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head

elvis

Rookie
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
25,881
Reaction score
4,464
Points
0

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
OP
Stainmaster

Stainmaster

Rookie
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
638
Reaction score
43
Points
0
Location
Southern California
Former Governor of Minnesota, Jessie Ventura, the nation's highest ranking independent office holder in memory, spoke with Glenn Beck about Alternative voting. Here is how Wiki explains it:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the American English term for a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, most commonly in single-winner elections. Indeed, IRV can be considered a special case of single transferable vote for the case where there is a single position to be filled. 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 ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term instant runoff is used because the method is said to simulate a series of runoff elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.[1] In the contingent vote form of IRV, all but the top vote-getters are eliminated before the instant runoff.

Instant runoff voting is sometimes referred to as alternative voting, or the Alternative Vote (AV) in the United Kingdom; the preferential ballot, or preferential voting, in Canada and Australia; and ranked choice voting in the United States. It is also, more rarely, called Ware's method, after its inventor W. R. Ware.


As it was explained on Beck if you voted for Jessie Ventura for President, and he did not have enough votes, you could have recorded a second choice like for example Tom Hanks. After the elimination of the Ventura candidacy your vote would go to Hanks. If Hanks failed your vote could go elsewhere.

As an independent I heartily endorse Alternative Voting. What do you think?
Voting with the exception of the theft of same by gaming the electronic voting machines is not the problem. It is not now nor ever was. Reason being that all our elected officials and repreesentatives must run for re-election and can be removed in a civil and orderly fashion. The problem is and always has been the giant gorilla in the room which is the unbalanced access that lobbiests have to manipulate our democacy with many billions of dollars in every and especially presidential election cycles and major legislation that effects our lives vs profit of multi national corporations. The tweeking of the form will not change the outcome when all that get elected get corrupted. The insidious preasure to conform to the will of the insider money is backed up with threats and action. If they need examples made they provide them. Check out Paul Wellstone's and Jon Jon's plane crash. John Kennedy's assasination.. There are numerous examples... The anthrax letters.... on and on. These people play hard ball. I'm not trying to go off on some stupid conspiracy ...just pointing out that wolves, jackals and hyenas ...do what they do. The only real and serious way to free our government from the tentacles of these vermin is to chop them off literally, slit thier throats and bleed them out. Nothing short of that will ever change a goddamn thing. You can dance a little jig and change a handfull of election outcomes and the same billions will be there waiting for whomever you chose.
Wow, you had held me close up until you started on Wellstone, Jon Jon's plane and anthrax. I am new to USMessageBoard, so I don't know what threads you might have posted expressing these ideas. Don't apologize for conspiracy theory or the reality of hard-ball politics. I don't think any of us really understand all the important aspects of how politics works in this country.

The old TV show "Twilight Zone" comes to mind. Was it all the creative imagination of Serling and other writers, or were we given a glimpse of "realities" that only some have the ability to understand. Do we simply write these people off as crackpots, or are they connected in someway to some 'whole soul' or 'universal truth.' A college professor of mine once advised his students, "Before looking into the paranormal for answers, thoroughly investigate all options of any given question in the here and now that we all understand."

I think that is a good point, and worthy of a thread on one of these quieter lists like "Media" by YOU. Strange, now I've got the momentary feeling like that line from the TV commercial in the movie Ghostbusters, "We're ready to believe you." Sorry, it's just me. I am not smoking anything, but I am laughing at myself. I get a little squirrely with some subjects - I really am sincere on this subject.

If you start a thread, let me know. I have an open mind, and will approach whatever you have to say with my professor's advice "to question in the here and now."


Who the hell knows about this, it is straight from Google Images.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top