"Cumulative Voting" Method Gaining Attention 375
Local ID10T writes "The AP reports on a system of voting, called 'cumulative voting,' which was just used under court order in Port Chester, NY. Under this system, voters can apportion their votes as they wish — all to one candidate, one to each candidate, or any combination. The system, which has been used in Alabama, Illinois, South Dakota, Texas, and New York, allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates. Courts are increasingly mandating cumulative voting when they deem it necessary to provide fair representation." Wikipedia notes that cumulative voting "was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 until its repeal in 1980," without saying why the system was abandoned.
Sigh... (Score:5, Informative)
This one has flaws too, but at least it's better than FPTP hopefully.
Some important things regarding the flaw of this voting method...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting#Voting_systems_criteria [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting#Tactical_voting [wikipedia.org]
Single Transferable Vote (Score:3, Informative)
allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes behind specific candidates
I'm pretty sure that's how most voting systems work.
It's too bad that a proportional STV (Single Transferable Vote) isn't more widely used, then there would truely be no wasted votes
Re:phew (Score:3, Informative)
Well then it's a good thing that it's the judiciary's role to enact public policy!
No, but it is the judiciary's duty to enforce the current law: the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [wikipedia.org].
Cumulative Voting and Vote-Splitting (Score:5, Informative)
There are also a lot of other parties, however they didn't make it in any parliament. But there are parties for families, "true to the Bible"-Christians, or a party with yogic flyer called natural law party (however they dissolved 2004).
Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Single Transferable Vote (Score:5, Informative)
It really is unfortunate that STV, proportional or otherwise, hasn't caught on more. You can sell instant-runoff voting in three sentences: "You can vote the new way or continue voting the old way. To vote the new way, number the candidates from 1 to n in your order of preference. To vote the old way, mark the candidate you want to vote for as 1 and leave the rest blank." There's really no disadvantage to it... except that it would give third parties a foothold against the entrenched two-party system, so why would any politician in power bother to support it? (Sorry to sound so cynical, on Slashdot no less.)
Sadly, the notion that right-versus-left is American politics is getting more entrenched as well. The voters in my home state of California unfortunately just passed a ballot measure [wikimedia.org] that will allow only two candidates on the ballot for any state general election. So long, third parties. Granted, most voters were probably taken in by the promise of open primaries, which was wrapped up in the same proposition and dominated the discussion. But that's just what was so outrageous about it: no one bothers to think that politics can be more subtle than Democrats versus Republicans.
Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're misinformed about how such things work. Here in New Zealand we use something very like the German system - while the tiny details may be different the basic idea is the same.
Parliament or whatever has N seats, everyone gets two votes:
- the first is for a local representative elected using FPP almost exactly as you do for the House in the US - there are N/2 local representative seats.
- the second is for a party, after the first set of votes are counted and the number of party representatives with local seats are determined the total party votes for the country are tallied - the second N/2 seats are allocated to representatives off of party nominated lists so that when added to the first N/2 the party seat count in parliament comes out according to the second vote
There are various details around minimum votes to get party seats and various rules for strange overhang situations that those can create that are different from system to system.
And yes we haven't had a single government since we changed to this system where a single party got 50% or more of the vote - all governments have been coalitions - it means politicians have to make public agreements and compromises which result in them acting more constrained in their actions than they would have been if they'd gotten 30% of the votes in an FPP election but 60% of the seats - it's a wonderful thing - many of the politicians, especially the old school ones, hate it.
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:3, Informative)
that one is harder
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Wcumballot.gif/160px-Wcumballot.gif [wikimedia.org]
I have problems with additions when I'm tired :-p
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:3, Informative)
and that one
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/FracCumBallot.gif/180px-FracCumBallot.gif [wikimedia.org]
Re:Sigh... (Score:2, Informative)
You want to destroy a country? Make it a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill
Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (Score:4, Informative)
No, don't get rid of the state legislatures.
They're some of the last fragments of the way the US was supposed to work, before Lincoln screwed it all up with his ham-fisted approach to ending slavery, that ended up giving colossal power to the federal government.
The states were supposed to have all the power, and to have that, you need your own governmental system.
That's also why there's the electoral college - it's counterproductive in a federal-centric system, but it makes sense in a state-centric system. And the US Senate - which should be elected by the governments of the states, IIRC, NOT the people - that was an attempt to prevent mob rule, and represent the states themselves in US government - the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people.
Everybody get 6 votes. (Score:3, Informative)
Tthey always got 6 votes. All that has changed is that before they had to vote for 6 different candidates, but now they can combine their votes.
So how does benefit minority groups? Well say there were 6+ white candidates but only one black candidate. Then voters could spend their votes only on white candidates, but did not have the option of spending their votes only on black candidates. So under the new system, if one sixth of the population wants a black representative, they get one. In principle this doesn't give them real political power, since the 5 white representatives could still out-vote them; however, for various reasons having a non-white representative gives some people warm fuzzies. For example a representative is meant to represent people as well as cast votes, so black people may be glad to have a black representative even if this doesn't directly increase their political power.
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:3, Informative)
No, looks like everyone gets six votes.
What it looks like to me is that, under the old system, there was one candidate being elected at a time. So, 25% of the people wanted a Hispanic in office, apparently, but everyone else didn't.
Under the new system, all six candidates get elected at a time. Those 25% of the people now got their wishes heard, because everyone was running against everyone, and not some crap like being pre-assigned a seat, and having to fight for that seat (at least that's how things work here in Ohio, if there's multiple seats in the same position up for grabs, things might work differently there) - and, if someone didn't mind the hispanic guy, they could say that, even if they were really voting for someone else.
Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (Score:4, Informative)
it's making everyone else's vote count as 1/6th the vote of people "selected" by the government.
If that was the case, cumulative voting would be bad, yes. But it doesn't work that way. What cumulative voting is, it gives everyone more votes to distribute among candidates. So everyone's vote is basically split into fractions, but everyone's ballot has the same weight overall. So if I (and everyone else) got 10 votes, I might chose to give 3 (respectively 3/10 of my vote) votes to candidate A, 2 (2/10) to candidate C, D, and J and 1 (1/10) vote to candidate X. This way, I can show that I like candidate A the most, but I'm also ok with candidates C, D, J, and X, but not with everyone else on the ballot.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1, Informative)
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, regarding the rebellious Kurds.
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:3, Informative)
Under the old system, two of the seats were up for vote at a time and you got to vote for which person you wanted in each seat, but you had to choose a different person for each seat. Under the new system, all six seats are up for election at a time and you get to vote for which person you want in each seat, but you can choose the same person for all six seats. The six candidates who get the most votes get the seats (even if they did not get all of their votes for the same seat). Also, this is the first article I have seen that mentions that the town suggested this solution.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2, Informative)
As it turns out, recent tax cuts indeed have an estimated half of citizens getting half their income tax back. Low income families. A family earning $50,000 with two children under 17 will get all their income tax back.
Also says they still pay for other taxes. Income tax is roughly half of all tax paid (so if your total tax rate is 34% then you're still paying 17%).
Also mentions that the reason the number has gotten so high is because of the recession.
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability. Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax: The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769. With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly. The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
When I first read that stat I thought it sounded really sinister... but after reading the article, and finding that it's based on a family of four earning $50,000 a year, I'm a lot less worried about it. Two adults, both working, making that amount are still going to struggle to make ends meet with two hungry mouths to feed.
Arrow's Impossibility theorem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Single Transferable Vote (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, if a 3rd party has sufficient support to have any chance of prevailing in the general election, it must certainly have sufficient support to come in first or second in the primary election, yes? Or are you seriously arguing that a 3rd party might be able to garner 51% of the vote when running against the 2 major party candidates, but can't manage to get about 30% of the people to vote for it in a wide-open primary election?
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Informative)
We should represent our greatest heros with care. Churchill was by no means perfect but he was one of the best of us and is still held in the highest regard in Britain. There's no reason to sully his reputation with truncated quotations:
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,”...
let our hero continue: ... “making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [i.e., tear] gas.”
The theme is concluded thus:
“The moral effect should be so good as to keep loss of life reduced to a minimum” and “Gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror yet would leave no serious permanent effect on most of those affected.”
I think you'll agree that the full text befits his reputation as Britain's visionary saviour, whereas the person who first sought to sully his reputation by offering up into popular currency the truncated misrepresentation of his view deserves shame.