"Cumulative Voting" Method Gaining Attention 375
Posted
by
kdawson
from the vote-early-and-often dept.
from the vote-early-and-often dept.
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.
"Fair representation" (Score:4, Insightful)
What they really mean by "fair representation" would be more accurately described as "damn voters won't vote for the people we want them to, so we're screwing with the rules."
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:5, Insightful)
and was hard for voters to understand.
Is there any alternative voting system which isn't "hard for voters to understand"? Of all the weaselly excuses to keep FPTP that is the lamest.
Seriously. If you can't understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cumballot.gif [wikipedia.org]
then maybe you shouldn't be voting.
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone clearly thinks it's hard to understand - they revised the diagram.
And now it's more confusing. Would my vote be invalid if I put my red mark for Mary Hill in column one or two?
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
This one has flaws too, but at least it's better than FPTP hopefully.
It's not good enough. We have the technology to run a democracy right now. Anything less is tyranny.
Better take a look at past attempts at democracies, like ancient Greece. Pure democracies fail as soon as people realize they can vote themselves free stuff. That's part of the problem the US is having currently as ~46% (and growing rapidly) of US citizens pay no federal income taxes, so voting for more/larger entitlements doesn't cost them anything.
These expansions in government give more & more power to those in government, thus giving them incentive to keep the feedback loop going until the system crashes.
You want to destroy a country? Make it a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Strat
Re:phew (Score:3, Insightful)
The main issue with the US voting system (well, apart from "lobbying" which is actually legalized corruption) is gerrymandering, with which outgoing politicians try and tailor constituencies to maximize the probably they'll be reelected, and the numbers of successful candidates on their sides. Apart from the judiciary, who's gonna stop them ?
Negative votes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree this is bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Electoral college wasn't intended for the top-heavy government we have today - it was intended for the pre-Lincoln weak central, strong state governments. And the people weren't SUPPOSED to elect the President or Senators - the people got to elect the House of Representatives - that was for the state governments themselves.
The so-called claim "equalily" in voting (Score:1, Insightful)
They say that cumulative voting will give the Hispanics in the area, who make roughly half the population, equal representation. However, according to articles I've read about this area, only a quarter of that half of the population vote. Then they wonder why a White candidate wins and there is no Hispanic on the 6 seat board? We can't vote for you. Why is the idea of splitting up that area into 6 seats "a bad idea", like you would your county commissioners in most American areas? One area would be predominately Hispanic, which would ensure atleast one seat would be for a candidate with the Hispanics' interest, but they won't do it that way.
I don't understand how giving 6 votes to a quarter of the actual voting population is going to help and yet the judges and election officials give each other pats on the back because one Hispanic candidate actually won a seat after you give voters 6 votes? Am I missing something?
Re:The "fairest" thing since affirmative action (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid solution to a non-problem (Score:1, Insightful)
If hispanics made up half the population and Hispanics wanted representation, then all that had to happen was for all the hispanics to vote. I guarantee that some other minorities and some whites would end up voting for an hispanic candidate if said candidate was an issue candidate and not a race candidate.
This is nothing but a way for a specific race, to get someone elected. Special rules designed to benefit a certain race? That sounds like racism to me.
Re:not proportional voting, rather representation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
...said the Prime Minister of a constitutional monarchy.
Re:Ranking system (Score:2, Insightful)
It's still lightyears better than FPTP. Having a two party system only because of marketing rather than because the system actively abhors third parties is progressive like fucking space aliens handing down super-advanced direct-brain democracy technology compared to Britain.
Share of vote: Labour 35%, Conservative 32%, Lib Dem 23%.
Share of seats: Labour 39%, Conservative 47%, Lib Dem 8%.
The Lib Dems needed 120,000 votes to win each of their seats. Labour needed 33,000.
The system itself makes it almost literally impossible for a third party to win a share of the vote which is anything less than completely absurd. I wish our only problem was marketing,
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
But they still pay all kinds of other taxes. Looking at federal income taxes is very skewed in favor of those that make a lot of money. Add payroll, sales and property, and the picture is a whole lot different. You end up with people who end up paying more taxes overall than people who pay federal income taxes, but it's all due to capital gains.
Re:Ranking system (Score:3, Insightful)
then the best candidate should be B, not A or C
Which is why a two party system is so much better than multiparty or cumulative. With two-party and one vote per candidate, both parties have to *compromise* in order to represent a majority of the electorate. Multiparty or cumulative voting means fringe groups get disproportionate representation.
Those who want Puerto Rico statehood are stuck in your ABC scenario today (Statehood, Independence, sovereign protectorate, or status quo). The Obama administration is trying to force their agenda through [hotair.com] by requiring a Yes/No vote on status quo first, then after that is off the table a second election to pick one of the other options. The slight plurality who will settle for nothing other than statehood will be happy, but the other 70% of the electorate will be very unhappy.
Re:Single Transferable Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they'll vote for Sarah Palin.
Why are liberals so scared of Palin, do they fear a strong willed woman that some women would vote blindly for instead of blinding voting democrat.
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are liberals so scared of Palin...
You don't have to be liberal to be scared of Palin. I fear Palin because she represents that absolute worst of politicians. She is totally ignorant, yet is so arrogant that she thinks that ignorance makes her more legitimate and "real". She literally thinks that she doesn't have to know anything, because God will give her the answer through prayer.
I freaking HATE Palin. She is the absolute definition of a brainless demagogue.
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Scared? Hardly.
Fear and dislike are completely different. And being a "strong willed woman" is not the problem. I've happily been voting for Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for years now. And it'd be very hard to say that any on them are not strong-willed. In palin's case though. the overt malice, mind-boggling stupidity, and insufferably snotty attitude just lead to a pure and intense visceral emotional dislike of her. And that's *before* considering the damage she would do to the country if she were ever to wind up in a position of significant power.
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:2, Insightful)
That "idiocy" put over 12 million into her bank account
Re:The Illinois experience (Score:4, Insightful)
You think you're being clever, but you're not.
The GP is right. Sarah Palin can hardly open her mouth without being snotty and condescending. And the only way you could not cringe when she spouts off with crap like: "Well, that's kinda like being a community organizer, dontcha know? Except that I had actual responsibilities." and not cringe at how obnoxious she was being is if you're nothing more than a partisan minion who's already made up his mind that all liberals are commie traitors and anyone who opposes them must be good regardless of any other consideration.
Pelosi is an ass and the GP is obviously a San Francisco liberal. But he's right about Palin and Pelosi is a paragon of humility and intelligence in comparison. For better examples than his, consider Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, the (female) republican candidates for governor and senator in California; both of whom I, for one, will be voting for in november. Compare and contrast how they present and comport themselves in public compared to Palin's showboating antics. Compare their considerable accomplishments to Palin's utter lack therof.
Democrats may have the wrong ideas (in my opinion) about how to run the country. But they're not evil and they're not traitors. And they are 100% right about Palin. We do all conservatives a disservice when we rally around dingbats like her, Michael Steele, and "joe the plumber". God... I'm almost glad that Bill Safire isn't around to see what we've become. Hopefully SOMEBODY will come along and rescue us from the idiots and fools running things now.