I feel like I've texted the world but it's really only a few thousand folks. :-) We would never get mandatory voting in the US. Instead we have constant efforts to suppress or discourage the vote. We make it ridiculously difficult. The candidates are often unappealing and the parties lackluster because they only have to appeal to the tiny sliver of the electorate. Too many people either don't bother to vote or face obscene barriers to voting. Or they are discouraged because the person or party who wins the popular vote doesn't always win the office. I think I'd better have a cider and a bowl of marshmallows.
I always find it easier to paint someone else's abode rather than my own. So I painted my brother's porch last summer and he, well, umm, he thought about painting my living room.
Was it a 911 Porch or a 944? ROFL!! It's a blonde joke and I can find it and post it you haven't seen it before.
Changing the subject altogether (sry). I did a quick check on credit on the limited number of projects I've run recently (Einstein, SETI@Home and WCG) and Einstein appears to give the best credit per CPU by a long shot.
Going back to one of the above subjects (voting). In a true democracy I believe compulsory voting is a must.
There was an interesting program on the radio here in the UK the other day. Someone proposed the idea that parliament should be picked at random from the electorate. The general consensus was that it would do a better job, for a short time then revert to the normal bunch of self serving incompetents.
Changing the subject altogether (sry). I did a quick check on credit on the limited number of projects I've run recently (Einstein, SETI@Home and WCG) and Einstein appears to give the best credit per CPU by a long shot.
Going back to one of the above subjects (voting). In a true democracy I believe compulsory voting is a must.
In a true democracy isn't the right not to vote a fundamental right?
But saying that and looking at the numbers and the results from several elections, I basically agree that it should be compulsory to vote.
Changing the subject altogether (sry). I did a quick check on credit on the limited number of projects I've run recently (Einstein, SETI@Home and WCG) and Einstein appears to give the best credit per CPU by a long shot.
Going back to one of the above subjects (voting). In a true democracy I believe compulsory voting is a must.
In a true democracy isn't the right not to vote a fundamental right?
Yes and that's how lots of people show their displeasure with the candidates put forth by the respective parties. The problem is that often gets ignored which furter exacerbates the problem.
Quote:
But saying that and looking at the numbers and the results from several elections, I basically agree that it should be compulsory to vote.
Any easy way to do that could be to give voters $100 off on their taxes if they voted, that would probably overwhelm alot of the polling places though as that could easily be more than a 100% increase compared to the most recent numbers. Florida and other States had problems with the numbers of people who did vote, let alone if they gave an incentive for people to vote. Cheating could ramp up too but it would be interesting to see people try to use multiple $100 vouchers when they file their taxes!!
Changing the subject altogether (sry). I did a quick check on credit on the limited number of projects I've run recently (Einstein, SETI@Home and WCG) and Einstein appears to give the best credit per CPU by a long shot.
Going back to one of the above subjects (voting). In a true democracy I believe compulsory voting is a must.
In a true democracy isn't the right not to vote a fundamental right?
Yes and that's how lots of people show their displeasure with the candidates put forth by the respective parties. The problem is that often gets ignored which furter exacerbates the problem.
The issue is the powers that be don't like the idea of a vote of abstain or present or none of the above. That choice belongs on the ballot and the jerks running should still have to pass 1/2 the votes and those voting present count as a vote. It would force the parties to abandon the wingnuts and run to the center.
Quote:
Quote:
But saying that and looking at the numbers and the results from several elections, I basically agree that it should be compulsory to vote.
Any easy way to do that could be to give voters $100 off on their taxes if they voted, that would probably overwhelm alot of the polling places though as that could easily be more than a 100% increase compared to the most recent numbers. Florida and other States had problems with the numbers of people who did vote, let alone if they gave an incentive for people to vote. Cheating could ramp up too but it would be interesting to see people try to use multiple $100 vouchers when they file their taxes!!
You are thinking of national elections. How about that local election for the sewer board? Can you give $100 away in that special election? Of course once we have mandatory registration if you don't vote you are serving jury duty might encourage a few people.
For the USA, I think that it might be better to fine rather than offer discounts, the GOP might just go for all those extra dollars, whilst at the same time maximising the number of voters, which is the opposite of their present position.
I think fines or incentives would be a hard sell in the US. As Winterknight notes the GOP works to suppress the vote and in general benefits by this policy. The more people who vote the greater their risk of losing seats. Discouraging voting and invalidating votes works to their advantage.
Maine had ranked choice voting for a federal election for the first time this year and the result was the incumbent Republican lost his seat to the Democratic challenger. He was ahead but did not have 50% of the vote on election night so it was second choice votes that did him in. Of course he filed a lawsuit which was immediately dismissed and is continuing to whine that the result isn't "fair". He doesn't seem to think refusing to hold town hall meetings or otherwise meet with his constituents for the past two years should have any effect on how people voted. Or that he refused to talk to the media and was caught telling supporters that was because the media might pin him down on something that would hurt his reelection prospects. Or voting against the ACA and for upper class and corporate would matter in a district that has the lowest per family income in all of New England.
I'm hopeful more municipalities, counties, and eventually states will adopt ranked choice voting. Perhaps the contentious and expensive runoffs happening in Mississippi and Georgia will prod more folks to consider a new way of voting. I agree with Gary that you should be able to vote "none of the above" but I think there would be more incentive to to vote with rank choice voting. Also there would be less incentive for candidates to air attack ads since they still need to appeal to enough people to garner second choice votes.
One last complaint and then I'm heading for another glass of cider. In the US most of the folks running the elections are partisans who have been elected into office. Georgia is only the most recent case of appalling conflict of interest issues.
I think 'ranked choice' or what we call 'preferential' voting is a reasonable compromise for close contests. The basic idea is : well, if your first choice didn't plainly get in then who would you prefer otherwise ? Hence counting votes is done in 'rounds'.
I have just voted in a four-way contest for a single seat, so consider for example four candidates with a host of legitimate ballots all marked 1 through 4 in each box :
- the first round just sorts primary votes ie. where a candidate got a '1' in their box. If this gives a clear win ( more than 50% ) then the election is over. If not then we have a second round :
- here the candidate with least primary votes is knocked out of contention and his/her '2' votes are allocated to the totals of the remaining three candidates. If this gives a clear win ( more than 50% ) then the election is over. If not then the third round :
- here the candidate with the least total of primary + secondary votes is knocked out of contention and his/her '3' votes are allocated to the remaining two candidates. This should give a clean win ( more than 50% ) and then the election is over. Barring a highly unlikely draw. The winner has thus been most preferred by summation at levels of preference ( 1 thru 3 ) by the body of voters.
{ Mathematically the '4' votes are irrelevant as that candidate is already implied by the '1', '2' and '3' choices, so no new information would be gleaned by any tally of the '4's. Of the remaining two candidates the one with more '4's must do so by having fewer '1' thru '3's. But we already have summated those. }
All candidates have a chance depending upon how well they have impressed voters at primary through tertiary levels.
You extend or shorten this algorithm mutatis mutandis for different candidate numbers, for example Wilkie wins on the 4th preference counts despite trailing on primary through tertiary vote distributions :
Barnes gets knocked out first round then his 856 ballots get allotted via the '2's boxes. Next Couser is out and his 12572 get distributions on the '3's, followed by Simpkins getting excluded so his 15835 are shared via the '4's and finally Wilkie the dark horse gets tossed over the line ..... note that later distributions include contributions from earlier distributions. Which is why we say that preferences summate to achieve a result.
This method is what defines 'fairness' for the preferential system. I have seen contests which go to the 'minor' preferences at level of '6' votes for instance. A mild downside is that the above is time consuming and hence declaration may take a while. Our upper houses typically take weeks to decide.
So in close elections the result is obtained by 'going to preferences', and a candidate with fewer primary votes can win against another with more primary votes because the lower ranked votes went preferentially his/her way. This is what happened to that Maine fellow.
In any event it is the rules a/a that decide which candidate wins. The main idea is to do exactly that : elect someone ! It is not a perfect system but the algorithm does conclude with a result. No point in trying to shift the goal posts after the event. The rules are the same for all, but if you don't like it then get the rules/method changed via democratic processes.
BTW : we use the preferential system at local, state and federal level. I'll reiterate that the only legal requirement is to have one's name marked off as having attended a booth ( deemed as true also for postal votes ) during the relevant time period. Provided the ballot papers don't leave the polling booth you can write what you want on them, thus is the potential for invalid votes which are ignored.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Side notes : the boundaries b/w electorates are often shifted a bit to maintain reasonable parity as per 'one person one vote' principle. That is for the lower houses. Not so for the Federal upper house/senate. There is an equal number of senators per state regardless of population numbers. For example a vote for a Tasmanian senate candidate has more than twice the 'punch' of a Victorian one. This an historical feature rather than a practical one, it comes from the time of federation when the separate 'colonies' wanted an equal right to review legislation generated in the House Of Representatives.
IMHO upper houses stymie democracies by negating. That's the only power they have : to say no. You can't introduce a Bill via the Senate, it has to come from the lower house floor. What is not often realised is that legislation in dispute is a minor fraction of the total parliamentary business. Most of the time law is passed without significant dissent from the major parties at least eg. will we give ourselves a pay rise ?? So it's at most 10 to 15% of bills that become public 'issues'.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
(No subject)
I'll upvote that :
..... followed by two electoral candidates to finish with :
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Snagletooth wrote: I feel
Was it a 911 Porch or a 944? ROFL!! It's a blonde joke and I can find it and post it you haven't seen it before.
Changing the subject
Changing the subject altogether (sry). I did a quick check on credit on the limited number of projects I've run recently (Einstein, SETI@Home and WCG) and Einstein appears to give the best credit per CPU by a long shot.
Going back to one of the above subjects (voting). In a true democracy I believe compulsory voting is a must.
Paul
There was an interesting
There was an interesting program on the radio here in the UK the other day. Someone proposed the idea that parliament should be picked at random from the electorate. The general consensus was that it would do a better job, for a short time then revert to the normal bunch of self serving incompetents.
Richard
The Gas Giant wrote:Changing
In a true democracy isn't the right not to vote a fundamental right?
But saying that and looking at the numbers and the results from several elections, I basically agree that it should be compulsory to vote.
Winterknight wrote:The Gas
Yes and that's how lots of people show their displeasure with the candidates put forth by the respective parties. The problem is that often gets ignored which furter exacerbates the problem.
Any easy way to do that could be to give voters $100 off on their taxes if they voted, that would probably overwhelm alot of the polling places though as that could easily be more than a 100% increase compared to the most recent numbers. Florida and other States had problems with the numbers of people who did vote, let alone if they gave an incentive for people to vote. Cheating could ramp up too but it would be interesting to see people try to use multiple $100 vouchers when they file their taxes!!
mikey wrote:Winterknight
The issue is the powers that be don't like the idea of a vote of abstain or present or none of the above. That choice belongs on the ballot and the jerks running should still have to pass 1/2 the votes and those voting present count as a vote. It would force the parties to abandon the wingnuts and run to the center.
You are thinking of national elections. How about that local election for the sewer board? Can you give $100 away in that special election? Of course once we have mandatory registration if you don't vote you are serving jury duty might encourage a few people.
For the USA, I think that it
For the USA, I think that it might be better to fine rather than offer discounts, the GOP might just go for all those extra dollars, whilst at the same time maximising the number of voters, which is the opposite of their present position.
I think fines or incentives
I think fines or incentives would be a hard sell in the US. As Winterknight notes the GOP works to suppress the vote and in general benefits by this policy. The more people who vote the greater their risk of losing seats. Discouraging voting and invalidating votes works to their advantage.
Maine had ranked choice voting for a federal election for the first time this year and the result was the incumbent Republican lost his seat to the Democratic challenger. He was ahead but did not have 50% of the vote on election night so it was second choice votes that did him in. Of course he filed a lawsuit which was immediately dismissed and is continuing to whine that the result isn't "fair". He doesn't seem to think refusing to hold town hall meetings or otherwise meet with his constituents for the past two years should have any effect on how people voted. Or that he refused to talk to the media and was caught telling supporters that was because the media might pin him down on something that would hurt his reelection prospects. Or voting against the ACA and for upper class and corporate would matter in a district that has the lowest per family income in all of New England.
I'm hopeful more municipalities, counties, and eventually states will adopt ranked choice voting. Perhaps the contentious and expensive runoffs happening in Mississippi and Georgia will prod more folks to consider a new way of voting. I agree with Gary that you should be able to vote "none of the above" but I think there would be more incentive to to vote with rank choice voting. Also there would be less incentive for candidates to air attack ads since they still need to appeal to enough people to garner second choice votes.
One last complaint and then I'm heading for another glass of cider. In the US most of the folks running the elections are partisans who have been elected into office. Georgia is only the most recent case of appalling conflict of interest issues.
Snags
I think 'ranked choice' or
I think 'ranked choice' or what we call 'preferential' voting is a reasonable compromise for close contests. The basic idea is : well, if your first choice didn't plainly get in then who would you prefer otherwise ? Hence counting votes is done in 'rounds'.
I have just voted in a four-way contest for a single seat, so consider for example four candidates with a host of legitimate ballots all marked 1 through 4 in each box :
- the first round just sorts primary votes ie. where a candidate got a '1' in their box. If this gives a clear win ( more than 50% ) then the election is over. If not then we have a second round :
- here the candidate with least primary votes is knocked out of contention and his/her '2' votes are allocated to the totals of the remaining three candidates. If this gives a clear win ( more than 50% ) then the election is over. If not then the third round :
- here the candidate with the least total of primary + secondary votes is knocked out of contention and his/her '3' votes are allocated to the remaining two candidates. This should give a clean win ( more than 50% ) and then the election is over. Barring a highly unlikely draw. The winner has thus been most preferred by summation at levels of preference ( 1 thru 3 ) by the body of voters.
{ Mathematically the '4' votes are irrelevant as that candidate is already implied by the '1', '2' and '3' choices, so no new information would be gleaned by any tally of the '4's. Of the remaining two candidates the one with more '4's must do so by having fewer '1' thru '3's. But we already have summated those. }
All candidates have a chance depending upon how well they have impressed voters at primary through tertiary levels.
You extend or shorten this algorithm mutatis mutandis for different candidate numbers, for example Wilkie wins on the 4th preference counts despite trailing on primary through tertiary vote distributions :
Barnes gets knocked out first round then his 856 ballots get allotted via the '2's boxes. Next Couser is out and his 12572 get distributions on the '3's, followed by Simpkins getting excluded so his 15835 are shared via the '4's and finally Wilkie the dark horse gets tossed over the line ..... note that later distributions include contributions from earlier distributions. Which is why we say that preferences summate to achieve a result.
This method is what defines 'fairness' for the preferential system. I have seen contests which go to the 'minor' preferences at level of '6' votes for instance. A mild downside is that the above is time consuming and hence declaration may take a while. Our upper houses typically take weeks to decide.
So in close elections the result is obtained by 'going to preferences', and a candidate with fewer primary votes can win against another with more primary votes because the lower ranked votes went preferentially his/her way. This is what happened to that Maine fellow.
In any event it is the rules a/a that decide which candidate wins. The main idea is to do exactly that : elect someone ! It is not a perfect system but the algorithm does conclude with a result. No point in trying to shift the goal posts after the event. The rules are the same for all, but if you don't like it then get the rules/method changed via democratic processes.
BTW : we use the preferential system at local, state and federal level. I'll reiterate that the only legal requirement is to have one's name marked off as having attended a booth ( deemed as true also for postal votes ) during the relevant time period. Provided the ballot papers don't leave the polling booth you can write what you want on them, thus is the potential for invalid votes which are ignored.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Side notes : the boundaries b/w electorates are often shifted a bit to maintain reasonable parity as per 'one person one vote' principle. That is for the lower houses. Not so for the Federal upper house/senate. There is an equal number of senators per state regardless of population numbers. For example a vote for a Tasmanian senate candidate has more than twice the 'punch' of a Victorian one. This an historical feature rather than a practical one, it comes from the time of federation when the separate 'colonies' wanted an equal right to review legislation generated in the House Of Representatives.
IMHO upper houses stymie democracies by negating. That's the only power they have : to say no. You can't introduce a Bill via the Senate, it has to come from the lower house floor. What is not often realised is that legislation in dispute is a minor fraction of the total parliamentary business. Most of the time law is passed without significant dissent from the major parties at least eg. will we give ourselves a pay rise ?? So it's at most 10 to 15% of bills that become public 'issues'.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal