See www.equal.vote.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your thoughts on Score Runoff Voting
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I think it's fine between candidates who are entered in the actual election. First-past-the-post is a broken, outdated system, IMO.
Where I disagree with the plan described at that link is where it suggests that every nominee for a primary should be included on the election ballot. IMO, a party selecting its candidate is an internal party matter, and parties should be able to select the candidate that carries their banner based on their own criteria. If a nominee in the primary doesn't get chosen as his party's candidate in the election, he still has the optiom of running in the election as an independent... but it shouldn't be automatically assumed that he would want to run in the election if he doesn't get his party's support.
Looking at their proposal a bit more in depth, I don't think I like it as much as "normal" ranked choice voting... i.e. instant runoff voting.
...but either one is a significant improvement over FPTP.
Edit: and for congress or senate elections, I still like mixed member proportional best. Even with score runoff voting, you're still talking about one candidate from a single party representing a district of a wide variety of voters, and you still get the problem that winning by a single vote gets as much representation as a landslide victory.
...but either one is a significant improvement over FPTP.
Edit: and for congress or senate elections, I still like mixed member proportional best. Even with score runoff voting, you're still talking about one candidate from a single party representing a district of a wide variety of voters, and you still get the problem that winning by a single vote gets as much representation as a landslide victory.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
So you saying let's replace two worthless candidates with a handful of worthless candidates that couldn't get elected without some convoluted vote manipulation. Yeah, that ought to work...
I like it.
It's elegant, simple & fair.
That should be a tip-off that it's a bad idea.
Since 92% of people have below average math skills,
they won't understand why one wins & the others lose.
There'd be even more gnashing of teeth over the result.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No. This is not a Democracy, no matter how many times the Communists repeat it.
"Time for real democracy ... U.S. no longer an actual Democracy ... bring the equal vote and true representative democracy to the U.S. ... solve the fundamental problem of our Republic ... It's time to create real democracy ... revolutionize our national democratic system ... blaze the trail for the nation to a better democracy".
"
To make it simpler, give each voter 10 'Votes' that they can spend on the candidates. They can give 1 vote to 10 people, or 10 votes to one person etc. This can be done in a way that requires no Math knowledge and has a similar effect.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
<yawn>
</yawn>Actually it would be better if they gave everyone 217 votes...
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Plus math doesn't get much simpler than this.There is an easier system...vote for me or be executed. Plain, simple, direct and to the point!
I see the inherent problem as winner takes all. One side wins, the other side is treated as having engaged in epic failure and now must resort to being on the sideline. In reality, less than half the country voted (let's make that clear). Of the half that did vote, not even half of them voted for either of the 2 primary contenders. So, less than 25% of the population wanted either of the top 2 candidates. Therefore 75% (or more) of the population is having to treat as leader what 25% voted for. I see this as true in pretty much all elections for POTUS that I'm familiar with. Maybe somewhere along the line as high as 35% of the country voted for POTUS at some point, and thus 65% did not.
I'd like to see it be that if you get a certain percentage, you become co-leader. I realize there are criticisms to this approach and isn't going to be perfect, but I see it as being more about uniting us than dividing us.
I'd like to see it be that if you get a certain percentage, you become co-leader. I realize there are criticisms to this approach and isn't going to be perfect, but I see it as being more about uniting us than dividing us.
In a Parliamentary system the person who comes in second becomes the official leader of the opposition. This can be a powerful position, especially if the vote was close.
Perhaps you could have the second place person become speaker of the house or something similar to that.
Nardo Polo
New Member
Good to see the discussion of Score Runoff Voting making its way around the interwebs!
Haha, I see what you did there. I heard that 65% of statistics are made up on the spot.
We put up a detailed comparison of SRV and IRV here: Compare SRV and IRV - Equal Vote Coalition - see what you think!
Haha, I see what you did there
. I heard that 65% of statistics are made up on the spot.We put up a detailed comparison of SRV and IRV here: Compare SRV and IRV - Equal Vote Coalition - see what you think!
That's 94.8%.Haha, I see what you did there
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It would be far better than what we have, but it wouldn't address the problem of our "winner take all" system. That alone ensures that a huge chunk of Americans actually have no representation.