Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have our federal election in two weeks time. What we get is a sheet with all the candidates for our local seat, often about five or six, and we get to rank them all.But the fun is with the Senate. Sometimes the voting paper has been literally about two feet wide as candidates are grouped in their parties or as independents. You can choose to rank six or more groups, or twelve individuals. Or the lot, if you have plenty of spare time.
Not computerised, not sure why. Pre-voting and postal voting starts today.
But what is believed to be the reason for our fairly moderate political environment is more the compulsory voting, which started in 1924 and is very widely supported. The candidates do not have to work at getting people to vote and the important voters tend to be the large groups of undecided, in the middle of the spectrum voters.
The second leaders debate was on last night and they shouted each other down in the end. Interestingly, Covid has not been an issue at all. It is all the old cost of living, interest rates, inflation. All of which will be with us regardless.
I (an American) support compulsory voting. That said, I am sympathetic to those who hold that they should have the liberty to abstain, though I consider that an irresponsible abdication of civic duty. To that end, I would support either a fairly lenient though necessarily pro-active opt-out or a NO VOTE option to be included on all ballots. I think that a voter is more invested in a society than one who does not vote.
I second what Grant Ames said - compulsory voting without a "none of the above" option would lead to a lot of people casting a random vote based on the position on the ballot, whatever name sounds best, etc. I do like the concept of requiring all who can vote to put the effort in to cast a ballot - even if it is to abstain from voting for any candidate.
If the US were to adopt RCV, one of the things I believe would be necessary is to move from single-seat House districts to multi-seat. Same number of reps but fewer districts. Currently, ten states have multi-member-seat districts (MMSD) in their state legislatures. The US Senate is already made up of multi-member districts.
Districts don't all need to have the same number of seats, could be 2-3-4-5 depending on population. Maybe more seats per district in cities or more districts. Then, in rural areas, fewer seats reflecting the lower population.
One advantage of MMSDs is that you can have pols from the same party competing both with each other and with pols from other parties. That can require the pols*to be in closer touch with their local electorate.
It also moves power away from the parties and toward the voter, so don't expect you know who to embrace it.People are afraid of it on the belief that it is too difficult for the electorate.
The voting part is simple. The counting part can get complicated. Votes must be counted by hand, sometimes 6-12 or more times.
The link explains how the Irish system works. It's important to remember that you should give your least favorite candidate your lowest ranked vote, #12 if there are 12 candidates, rather than no vote at all.
It could make a difference in the later vote counts.
Also, when a "quota" number is used, that number is calculated using a formula that ensures that no more candidates than available seats can qualify, but at the same time someone can be elected without reaching the qualifying number of votes.
RCV may not be perfect, but I doubt many would argue the current US system is either.
I'm a big believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it." The current system is deeply ingrained in our history and our psyche. My concern is that we have a system that's good, not perfect, but if you scramble it up, you may wind up with chaos rather than smooth functioning.
I'm a big believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it." The current system is deeply ingrained in our history and our psyche. My concern is that we have a system that's good, not perfect, but if you scramble it up, you may wind up with chaos rather than smooth functioning.
A lotta people do think it's broke. If you think the country couldn't cope, I think you may be selling "American Exceptionalism" short. You're not sounding like a "contrarian and free thinker."
I second what Grant Ames said - compulsory voting without a "none of the above" option would lead to a lot of people casting a random vote based on the position on the ballot, whatever name sounds best, etc. I do like the concept of requiring all who can vote to put the effort in to cast a ballot - even if it is to abstain from voting for any candidate.
There certainly is the issue of the “donkey vote” where a certain number of people will number their votes in the order presented. Most people who vote in person take a voting sheet from their preferred party, usually handed out at the gate, and copy it.
We are completely at liberty to hand the sheet in empty, the obligation ends with having our name crossed off the electoral role.
The social obligation is to buy a sausage sandwich or some cakes from the cake stall, which is usually set up in the grounds of the school which is often the polling place. Good to go early for the best choice!
But the number of pre voters and postal voters increases every election, is now at least 40%, not so good for the fundraising efforts.
@Buck_Mulligan: While I don't have a problem with multi-member districts (speaking as someone who is white though), you'd likely get complaints (and lawsuits) that larger districts would make it harder for racial or other geographically-correlated minority groups to elect a consensus-of-the-group candidate. On the other hand, especially if it's a "vote for x candidates running for x seats" system (as opposed to each seat being an individual race), MMDs would probably benefit getting more women, LGBT+ people, younger candidates, etc. representation (groups that aren't geographically correlated like race or ancestry are) because a voter would not be limited to voting for just one candidate (and would be more willing to take a "chance" with a second, third, etc. vote).
@Buck_Mulligan: While I don't have a problem with multi-member districts (speaking as someone who is white though), you'd likely get complaints (and lawsuits) that larger districts would make it harder for racial or other geographically-correlated minority groups to elect a consensus-of-the-group candidate. On the other hand, especially if it's a "vote for x candidates running for x seats" system (as opposed to each seat being an individual race), MMDs would probably benefit getting more women, LGBT+ people, younger candidates, etc. representation (groups that aren't geographically correlated like race or ancestry are) because a voter would not be limited to voting for just one candidate (and would be more willing to take a "chance" with a second, third, etc. vote).
Good point. I'd also make your x candidates for y (not x) seats. Another factor is that while MMDs don't eliminate gerrymandering they do make it more difficult to effectively pursue. The more seats, the harder.
Having to compete with someone from your own party tends to push candidates to the center rather than extremes because, you want to portray the other party as extreme/incompetent/misguided, and that doesn't work as well if you too are being extreme in the opposite direction, potentially leaving your same party partner a lot of free territory in which to vacuum up votes.
Also with RCV, the concept of being "transfer friendly" i.e being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices of voters who did not make you their 1st choice, which is important in later vote counts, does not generally apply to the extremists.
@Buck_Mulligan: While I don't have a problem with multi-member districts (speaking as someone who is white though), you'd likely get complaints (and lawsuits) that larger districts would make it harder for racial or other geographically-correlated minority groups to elect a consensus-of-the-group candidate. On the other hand, especially if it's a "vote for x candidates running for x seats" system (as opposed to each seat being an individual race), MMDs would probably benefit getting more women, LGBT+ people, younger candidates, etc. representation (groups that aren't geographically correlated like race or ancestry are) because a voter would not be limited to voting for just one candidate (and would be more willing to take a "chance" with a second, third, etc. vote).
Good point. I'd also make your x candidates for y (not x) seats. Another factor is that while MMDs don't eliminate gerrymandering they do make it more difficult to effectively pursue. The more seats, the harder.
Having to compete with someone from your own party tends to push candidates to the center rather than extremes because, you want to portray the other party as extreme/incompetent/misguided, and that doesn't work as well if you too are being extreme in the opposite direction, potentially leaving your same party partner a lot of free territory in which to vacuum up votes.
Also with RCV, the concept of being "transfer friendly" i.e being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices of voters who did not make you their 1st choice, which is important in later vote counts, does not generally apply to the extremists.
The solution is for "group leaders" to get out the vote. During a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York I was walking a prominent Hispanic leader across Quarropas Street to the courthouse. The controversy was over Port Chester, which is maybe 40% Hispanic. Ultimately, the at-large system was fractured into single-member districts, the opposite of MMD's. I asked, though, why they were spending so much time in Court when simple exercise of existing suffrage rights would solve the problem. He said he did not know.
It seems that we are looking for a solution in search of a problem. There are more effective weapons against gerrymandering without throwing the system into chaos.
The solution is for "group leaders" to get out the vote. During a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York I was walking a prominent Hispanic leader across Quarropas Street to the courthouse. The controversy was over Port Chester, which is maybe 40% Hispanic. Ultimately, the at-large system was fractured into single-member districts, the opposite of MMD's. I asked, though, why they were spending so much time in Court when simple exercise of existing suffrage rights would solve the problem. He said he did not know.
It seems that we are looking for a solution in search of a problem. There are more effective weapons against gerrymandering without throwing the system into chaos.
One solution doesn't fit, or have to fit, all problems. Combatting gerrymandering is a byproduct of, not the primary goal of RCV.
The bigger county councils here in Md combine both single-member and at-large districts. E.G. 7 district, plus 4 at-large members.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
