Election Reform

[Aesir]

There are two points I will argue in this thread; One Our electoral process needs a complete overhaul. Two Campaign Finance is not nearly as bad as our electoral system however we still need to reform this as it plays a huge role in who get's elected.

Electoral Reform

We use a Electoral college as a decider to who gets elected as President. (I would suggest visiting that link if you do not understand how the system works)

Now I'm sure many of you are thinking to yourselfs; "The electoral College Works great, why should we fix something that isn't broken?"

Well to be blunt saying it isn't broken is a huge understatement. I'll first list the problems with the Electoral College.

1. To Much Emphasis On Swing States
   States that are not Blue Or Red, are more competitive because of the Winner Take All System. John McCain didn't bother Campaigning in New York because regardless how much support he might of had. It would have been a waste of time to Campaign in New York. Lets look at some numbers; Let's say Obama had a 66% percentage in New York, but McCain had a 33% Percentage. Under the Winner Take All System, those 33% are going unrepresented.
   Thus from a cost benefit analysis It's a waste of time For John McCain to campaign in New York. The same is True for Obama and Campaigning in Texas.
2. Voter Turn Out Is Discouraged
   Once again this point Ties in with the above. Because of Winner Take All System, it discourages voters from participating. Unless you live in a Swing state it will not matter if you turn out to vote. If a state holds 1 Million Voters and 800,000 of them vote democratic. and 100,000 vote Republican. Do you really think it matters what those other 100,000 do? Of course not. The state has already been won.
3. Disenfranchisement
   This point holds more true prior to the Civil Rights Movement and Woman's Suffrage. However even today there are still times when states disenfranchise their voters. This is a Problem within the system. Because Electoral votes are counted not by voters but by over all population.
4. Smaller States Carry More Weight
   A voter in Wisconsin (10 Electoral Votes) Carries more weight than a voter in California (55 Electoral Votes) Something interesting; Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes, but has a population less than that of Washington D.C which has more citizens.
5. Third Parties Are Irrelevant
   The Winner Take All system discourages a voter to vote their conscience. Through the Spoiler effect. IE:
   
   Bush: 40%
   Gore: 30%
   Nader: 30%
   
   What did the Majority of Americans want? A Liberal. Yet they would get a Conservative if the election followed like this.
   
6. Over All A Very Undemocratic System
   As pointed above, in a country that exalts it's self as the leader in democracy how can we possibly rationalize the use of such an undemocratic system?

Now how do we fix the system? Well There a Veriety of Ways; However I think it would be better if we went with Option Number 1:

Instant Run Off Voting, with Popular Elections.

Instead of One Person, One Vote. In an Instant Run Off Election, Voters would rank the candidates they like the most. Say if you're A liberal Voters in 2008 this might have been what your sheet looked like:
1. Nader
2. Obama

Now during the first count, if no candidate gains a majority the candidate with the lowest votes would be eliminated and voting would commence again.

So Lets say Nader had the lowest. He would be scratched off and now that liberal voter would be voting for Obama.

This type of voting eliminates the fear of spoiling an election. There by allowing people to vote their conscience.

Now a popular vote would encourage voter turn out, their vote will actually count! Since the winner take all approach would no longer be used those 30% of NY voters who wanted McCain wouldn't be an irrelevant voice. Third party voters as well can rest assured that their votes won't create a spoiler effect and cause the election of the Devil person they didn't want.

----
Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign Finance Reform has existed since the 19th Century. It's a serious issue that should be looked into. An election should not be about which Candidate has the most money, other wise you might end up with a person like this as your next President. (Btw he could have easily been the next president. =| )

The Government has made some Progressive Legislation on the topic. However they haven't gone far enough. One of the problems that arises from donations is, when you have donations from certain Political Action Committees (PAC'S) and Corporations. Many times politicians will court to those interests. So if Big Oil is giving you a few million to your campaign, there really isn't an incentive to talk about Global Warming and the need to reduce dependency on foreign oil. After all it's obvious once you do you won't be seeing their beefy contributions.

So What Can We Do? Well that's a difficult question, however on this oage there are some proposals. I personally would advocate sending money anonymously through the Federal Election Commission. That way you can still support the Candidate of your choice, but the candidates will no longer feel the need to appeal to the special interest groups.

----

I realize this was long, but hopefully this will foster some debate.

 

[AltF4]

I'm going to express a concern (that I discovered on the Wikipedia page for IRV). Perhaps you could address this.

I fear that IRV, while more accurate in the many ways you elaborated on, would necessitate a greater reliance on computer systems for vote counting. And as a security specialist, I know very well the problems associated with this. Vote tampering by malicious organisations and even vote hacking by individuals is already a real concern today. A new system so complicated that it could only be counted by computer (which it would be for a large election) would be a salivating target for election riggers.

A standard pluralistic manually counted vote can be inaccurate and a tad prejudicial. But it is at least naturally resistant to corruption.

 

[Aesir]

I'm going to express a concern (that I discovered on the Wikipedia page for IRV). Perhaps you could address this.

I fear that IRV, while more accurate in the many ways you elaborated on, would necessitate a greater reliance on computer systems for vote counting. And as a security specialist, I know very well the problems associated with this. Vote tampering by malicious organisations and even vote hacking by individuals is already a real concern today. A new system so complicated that it could only be counted by computer (which it would be for a large election) would be a salivating target for election riggers.

Well FairVote has a nice paper talking about this. It was actually cited in the wikipage for IRV.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2469

Unless I'm missing something here, but is auditing what you're worried about? I figured auditing would avoid the problem of election compromises.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It's a popular misconception that popular voting makes every vote count, because it doesn't. It just shifts the political calculations. I used this map in the DWYP contest a few years ago, when the topic was about switching to a popular vote system:

If you were running for president, where would you campaign? In 2008, the Obama campaign made turning Colorado into a blue state a central part of their strategy, and they made a serious run at Montana as well. Those decisions were advisable only under the electoral college system. In a popular election system, it would be very foolish to dedicate resources to almost the entire western half of the US, when you can reach far more people in a much smaller area on the eastern seaboard.

The problem isn't the system, because regardless of whether you're operating under the electoral college or a popular vote system, people are going to get ignored. That's because campaigns are massively expensive, and resources must be allocated accordingly. Kansas doesn't matter in the electoral college, and it won't matter under a popular vote system, because the money spent there would be better spent in New Jersey or California, in both systems.

 

[Aesir]

The problem I have with your argument is it completely ignores what a Democratic Republic should be. Every vote should count equally. In the current system it doesn't.

It's a popular misconception that popular voting makes every vote count, because it doesn't. It just shifts the political calculations. I used this map in the DWYP contest a few years ago, when the topic was about switching to a popular vote system:



If you were running for president, where would you campaign? In 2008, the Obama campaign made turning Colorado into a blue state a central part of their strategy, and they made a serious run at Montana as well. Those decisions were advisable only under the electoral college system. In a popular election system, it would be very foolish to dedicate resources to almost the entire western half of the US, when you can reach far more people in a much smaller area on the eastern seaboard.[/quote]
Like wise in an Electoral College there's no reason to go to *insert some small obscure state here* It's not tactical at all. My argument about making every vote count falls on those already known states. Texas is a red state and will probably always be a red state. However those democratic voters (there's quite a large number of them) When they vote they're basically wasting their time. Why? because a Republican will win that state. That's the goal of popular elections. It gives those minorities voters a voice they didn't have.

In all honesty why should those small obscure states carry more political weight then the more popular areas? There's no logical reason for it.

[quote]The problem isn't the system, because regardless of whether you're operating under the electoral college or a popular vote system, people are going to get ignored. That's because campaigns are massively expensive, and resources must be allocated accordingly. Kansas doesn't matter in the electoral college, and it won't matter under a popular vote system, because the money spent there would be better spent in New Jersey or California, in both systems.[/QUOTE]
As I asked above. Why should those small states with such low populations be so important? Why must they carry more weight than larger states? Why must a voter in Kentucky matter more than a voter in California?

There's no reason to continue with the current system, under a popular vote every vote counts equally.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The problem I have with your argument is it completely ignores what a Democratic Republic should be. Every vote should count equally. In the current system it doesn't.

My thoughts exactly. As both Aesir and Jam have stated, many sparsely populated states won't receive much attention no matter which system we use. But to tell the 30% of democrat voters in Texas or the 10% of republican voters in DC that their votes are futile is wrong. Everyone should count; it's one of the most basic principals of a democracy.


I am not, however, in favor of the IRV system. As AltF4 stated, there are a multitude of complexities in this system to deal with. In addition to the issue of computer hacking, there are several instances where ranking candidates could cause problems. For instance:

a) You like one and only one candidate. All of the others you don't support at all.
b) You have on candidate you would like to vote for, but the order of your second and third favorites is hard to decide.

Voting would take longer, and polling places would have to be open later. Also, what if there are, say, 7 presidential candidates? Would you have to order all of them? Sure, the system is more precise, but I just feel it would dramatically lower efficiency. I just like the system of one vote per person, plain and simple.



As far as electoral reform goes, the "voting with dollars" system has been the one I've been most in favor of. I don't think it's a perfect system, but it's certainly a lot better than what we have right now.

 

[Aesir]

I am not, however, in favor of the IRV system. As AltF4 stated, there are a multitude of complexities in this system to deal with. In addition to the issue of computer hacking,

The system doesn't have to be computerized. I linked a paper in my response to Alt showing there are other alternatives.

there are several instances where ranking candidates could cause problems. For instance:
a) You like one and only one candidate. All of the others you don't support at all.

Good, Than all you have to do is check off that one candidate you like. No one said you have to rank all the candidates. If you're a Democrat and you only like Obama, than all you have to do is check off Obama. You're not forced to vote for people you don't want. The IRV system is wonderful in the respect that it gives informed voters a choice.

b) You have on candidate you would like to vote for, but the order of your second and third favorites is hard to decide.

Ranking isn't a requirement.

Voting would take longer, and polling places would have to be open later. Also, what if there are, say, 7 presidential candidates? Would you have to order all of them? Sure, the system is more precise, but I just feel it would dramatically lower efficiency. I just like the system of one vote per person, plain and simple.

Those would be good arguments if other countries hadn't already developed this system. There are numerous places which have been using IRV for quite sometime now and it works great. For instance Ireland.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Ignore this, I didn't read carefully enough.

 

[Aesir]

It might work great in Ireland, but Ireland is not split up into 50 different smaller regions. Electoral college makes more sense with the way our country is divided.

You're confused.

IRV works GREAT in Republics that are split up in states. (For the simple fact that it's easier to since states establish an IRV system without the Federal Governments consent.) The number of states is irrelevant when speaking about IRV vs. One Person per Vote.

You can have an IRV ballot system while having an Electoral College. I'm advocating that we do away with the Electoral College and replace it with popular voting. Popular voting is more accurate when determining the winner of Elections. IRV provides even more accuracy as it gives informed voters a choice so they don't feel obligated to vote for the least worst candidates.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

You're confused.

IRV works GREAT in Republics that are split up in states. (For the simple fact that it's easier to since states establish an IRV system without the Federal Governments consent.) The number of states is irrelevant when speaking about IRV vs. One Person per Vote.

You can have an IRV ballot system while having an Electoral College. I'm advocating that we do away with the Electoral College and replace it with popular voting. Popular voting is more accurate when determining the winner of Elections. IRV provides even more accuracy as it gives informed voters a choice so they don't feel obligated to vote for the least worst candidates.

I was confused, sorry.

The thing is, a lot of Americans aren't informed voters. I mean most are, but it could potentially backfire.

Let's say there are 3 candidates, candidate A, B, and C.

John Doe has only researched candidate A, who he will vote for. His second choice is candidate B, who he has not looked at extensively, but from what he's heard from his peers is a good candidate.

Now candidate A is eliminated, and his vote goes to candidate B, who he realizes is not such a great candidate after all. Now John has ended up voting for someone that he doesn't actually want to win the election.

This situation is a bit far fetched, but could happen in America, where many voters just vote for whoever their party's candidate is, regardless of whether or not they agree with that person's ideas. I suppose it could happen anywhere, but especially in America, since I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't research the IRV system before voting, anyway.

Seems good overall to me, but has a few chinks in its armor.

Eh, what doesn't though?

 

[Aesir]

I was confused, sorry.

The thing is, a lot of Americans aren't informed voters. I mean most are, but it could potentially backfire.

Let's say there are 3 candidates, candidate A, B, and C.

John Doe has only researched candidate A, who he will vote for. His second choice is candidate B, who he has not looked at extensively, but from what he's heard from his peers is a good candidate.

Now candidate A is eliminated, and his vote goes to candidate B, who he realizes is not such a great candidate after all. Now John has ended up voting for someone that he doesn't actually want to win the election.

This situation is a bit far fetched, but could happen in America, where many voters just vote for whoever their party's candidate is, regardless of whether or not they agree with that person's ideas. I suppose it could happen anywhere, but especially in America, since I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't research the IRV system before voting, anyway.

Seems good overall to me, but has a few chinks in its armor.

Eh, what doesn't though?

Again John Doe doesn't have to vote for that Candidate, IRV doesn't force you to rank your favorites. If you only have one just pick one. If John Doe picked candidate B as his second choice than later realized it was a bad idea that's his problem for not thinking that over. It's not a fault with IRV that's a fault with being a moron. The last half of your post kind of refuted your argument by the way, you basically acknowledge that party voters were more likely to vote a person they didn't agree with, so I don't see how this is a good critique of IRV, when every system as the dumb voters.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Again John Doe doesn't have to vote for that Candidate, IRV doesn't force you to rank your favorites. If you only have one just pick one. If John Doe picked candidate B as his second choice than later realized it was a bad idea that's his problem for not thinking that over. It's not a fault with IRV that's a fault with being a moron. The last half of your post kind of refuted your argument by the way, you basically acknowledge that party voters were more likely to vote a person they didn't agree with, so I don't see how this is a good critique of IRV, when every system as the dumb voters.

@ Bold: I know, no need to tell me that.

I was basically realizing that what I was saying was dumb and not a good representation of an IRV scenario, but I decided to post it anyway just to throw it out there. I know that's the voters decision to be an idiot.

Now that I think about the system it makes more and more sense. I should have looked at it more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

 

[blazedaces]

I've read these topics before and usually agree that the popular vote is better. Also, the IRV system seems like a much better choice.

But to be quite frank I don't realistically see our system changing any time soon. Who's going to push for something like this? There are too many stupid republicans who will just scream that this is change so it's necessarily bad and use words that have nothing to do with the subject like calling it "socialism" and it will never get through...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I've read these topics before and usually agree that the popular vote is better. Also, the IRV system seems like a much better choice.

But to be quite frank I don't realistically see our system changing any time soon. Who's going to push for something like this? There are too many stupid republicans who will just scream that this is change so it's necessarily bad and use words that have nothing to do with the subject like calling it "socialism" and it will never get through...

-blazed

Well if you're going to have that attitude.

I will say Democrats wouldn't touch this issue because they actually benefit from it. Just like Republicans do.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The system doesn't have to be computerized. I linked a paper in my response to Alt showing there are other alternatives.

Good, Than all you have to do is check off that one candidate you like. No one said you have to rank all the candidates. If you're a Democrat and you only like Obama, than all you have to do is check off Obama. You're not forced to vote for people you don't want. The IRV system is wonderful in the respect that it gives informed voters a choice.

Ranking isn't a requirement.



Those would be good arguments if other countries hadn't already developed this system. There are numerous places which have been using IRV for quite sometime now and it works great. For instance Ireland.

Well, the link you provided was pretty convincing. I suppose if it's not solely computerized and rankings isn't a requirement, it's a pretty good system. There could still be a few sticky situations, but they would be pretty uncommon.