10/7 Let's make every vote count. Unless it hurts us.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/07/MNSESIOTG.DTL
\_ Changing the electoral system of the most populous state in the
country, while leaving the rest of the states the same, is not
"making every vote count"; it's a transparent attempt to undermine
the electoral process. If you want to change all 50 states, we'd
have something to talk about. -tom
\_ I'd take a 50 state change. And no, CA wouldn't even be the
first leading the way, but the third. And if you read the
article, they have no concern about voters but their own power.
How many quotes in there are about killing babies and shooting
guns and other forms of violence?
\_ I'd consider a 50-state change, but that's not what's on the
table. I'm sure the Republicans would fight heartily against
a 50-state change. This is a political move (led by
Guliani's campaign) and was defeated politically
by the opposing party. No surprise at all. -tom
\_ Of course, that can never happen. States aren't allowed to
make those compacts. Frankly I think it'd be better if
every state went to the congressional district solution,
but I'd be okay if CA did it. That would probably go for
TX, NY and FL as well. The states are too big.
\_ 'States aren't allowed to make those compacts'?
E_LACKS_FACTUAL_BASIS. You're a moron. -!tom
\_ What part of "No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State" in Article I, Section 10,
paragraph 3 of the constitution don't you understand?
http://csua.org/u/joe
\_ The part in Article II that says "Each state
shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a number of electors...."
http://csua.org/u/joj If a number of states
pass state legislation conditional on other
states passing similar legislation concerning
a winner-take-all award of electors, that would
not constitute the Agreement or Compact you
cite above.
\_ I believe that making the allocation of
electors conditional on how other states
allocate their electors would be an illegal
compact. Do it or not. None of this crap
about "who else is going"? Otherwise, all
compacts could be "we'll do this if State B
implements it as well" would be a way to get
around this paragraph every single time.
\_ Welcome to Constitutional Law 101.
\_ I believe you are not a fucking lawyer,
and that you should shut the fuck up before
you highlight your lack of domain-specific
knowledge further.
\_ Jesus, even I wouldn't go that far. It's
the motd, not Debate Club. -!pp
\_ You'd be wrong about the (R) fighting a 50 state change.
Because they'd win the Presidency hands down if the last
several elections are anything to go by. Anyway, I don't
care who came up with an idea if the idea is good. The
source of a good idea seems to be a reason to dismiss an
idea to you. To me that is just ad hominem.
\_ No, you forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
\_ In the current climate of gerrymandering by both
parties, district-based electoral votes are
meaningless. A direct apportionment by popular vote
would be more representative, esp. if coupled with
Instant Runoff Voting. --erikred
\_ Ok, true, I forgot the gerrymandering part. I still
like the concept even if the implementation would
be flawed due to policians picking their voters
instead of voters picking their politicians. I'm
not entirely thrilled with true direct democracy
given how stupid the average citizen is. As a
separate issue I think IRV is too complex for most
people to figure out. You think the butterfly
ballot and hanging chads thing was a mess? Wait
til people start complaining they didn't understand
IRV or it wasn't clear or whatever so they ended up
with Pat Buchanan in office.
\_ Question: why would you expect less direct
methods to succeed in the face of postulated
stupidity of the voter? -- ilyas
\_ The point (to me) of having to win voting
blocks (of whatever size) instead of just
across the entire set of individuals helps
prevent a regional candidate from squeaking
in. When regional votes count you have to
please the entire nation to some degree not
just a large enough group who all think the
same.
\_ Alright, but given your own assumption
of voter stupidity how does pleasing a wider
section of voters help? You are slicing
the same stupid pie. -- ilyas
\_ It spreads the stupidity such that a
candidate must gain the confidence of
*different* sets of stupid people. Just
taking a single geographic region or
heavily taking cities/rural areas alone
won't be enough. Call it a 'stupidity
smoothing function' if you like. I don't
think you'll find that many stupid people
all thinking the same thing across
multiple slices of the country.
\_ If you just want to average, you leave
yourself open to well known biases,
anchoring, etc. Averaging over
stupid opinions doesn't give you good
outcomes if good opinions are 'far
away.' Further, if you want
to average, you can just bypass the
voting thing entirely. -- ilyas
voting thing entirely. Still, it
would be nice to harness the 'wisdom
of the crowds' effect, though I think
markets do that better than voting
schemes. But then using markets to
make political decisions is batshit
crazy, right? -- ilyas
\_ How would you use a market? Require
people to bid for the right to vote?
\_ I submit to you that ordering your choices 1,
2, 3 would be much easier than asking Amerians
to select one, and only one, candidate, and
tough shit if he doesn't win outright.
\_ Of course it isn't easier. "Pick one" is easier
than "pick an ordered list".
\_ I haven't thought about voting schemes a lot,
but your notion of 'easier' seems misapplied.
What's difficult about 'picking one' is
choosing which candidate matches your
beliefs better, out of a field of candidates
who are generally not very well matched to
your beliefs. This creates 'hard choices,'
since the winner takes all. In this case,
an ordered list makes the choice less hard,
since you are signalling your beliefs much
better. Voting isn't a computational
problem but a signaling one. -- ilyas
\_ I haven't thought about voting schemes a
lot, but your notion of 'easier' seems
misapplied. What's difficult about
'picking one' is choosing which candidate
matches your beliefs better, out of a field
of candidates who are generally not very
well matched to your beliefs. This creates
'hard choices,' since the winner takes all.
In this case, an ordered list makes the
choice less hard, since you are signalling
your beliefs much better. Voting isn't a
computational problem but a signaling one.
-- ilyas [formatd]
\_ Sorry, I meant easier to implement. True,
making that one pick is not easier
for a conscientious voter, especially
with >2 candidates and tactical concerns.
But the practical apparatus, instruction,
and reporting of results are obviously
harder than pick one. AFAIK this is
the primary complaint. Personally I
actually have long supported IRV, ever
since I heard about it in high school
or whatever.
\_ I submit to you that the typical American
voter barely knows anything about their first
choice much less has 3 choices in mind they
could actually rank.
\_ IRV is not monotonic, and thus not strategy-free.
I think this makes it a terrible idea. Approval
voting >> IRV. Simpler too. -dans
\_ Approval voting is not strategy free either.
I think its simplicity is a major point in
favor though. It's very close to the simple
FPTP system logistically. However I feel it
does not really address the "spoiler problem"
which is the main benefit to alternative voting
systems as I see it.
\_ Okay, just brushed up on this (I haven't done
serious research or study of voting systems
since 2004), and you are correct, approval
voting is not strategy free. There exists,
however, fairly strong evidence that it is
about as resistant to tactical voting as one
can hope for without introducing
non-determinism. We seem to be having some
problems with semantics because approval
voting *eliminates* the spoiler problem, how
do you feel it fails to address it? IRV,
however, partly because it is not monotonic,
and due to several other side effects risks
*severe* spoiler effects. -dans
\_ Due to the Primary system (which won't go
away with IRV), approval voting already has
tactical voting built in. I consistently
re-register as a member of whichever party
has the Primary I want to vote in. Je suis
un saboteur.
\_ That's reasonable, but it has nothing to
do with approval voting itself. And,
arguably, approval voting makes the
primary system unnecessary, though I
understand why it probably wont' go away
for political reasons. -dans
\_ Consider candidates ABC and I think A>>B>>C.
Do I vote for B or not? Voting for B hurts
A's chances. But I really don't want C to
win. IRV lets me just rank them A,B,C and
leads to a reasonable result in general.
The results may not always match some
theoretical rule but I don't think it has
practical problems in most cases. It's not
perfect but it lets me state my preferences
better than approval voting.
\_ "This voting for 3 people thing really
confuses me and I've now been disen-
franchised! I want to re-vote! Wah!"
\_ It would sure as hell be easier to
divine voter intent in IRV than
hanging chads.
\_ Um, the idea is terrible. It's a blatant power grab.
Furthermore, past events are not a predictor of future
behavior. There are some very interesting shifts in
the behavior of substantial voter demographics in red
states. Oh, and you don't seem to know what ad hominem
means. You're a moron. That's ad hominem. -!tom
\_ Ad hominem: attacking the man, not the idea. Thank
you for showing us how little you know. The idea is
great. It gets us closer to true democracy instead
\_ Little known fact: The founding fathers didn't
want "true democracy". They thought the people
as a whole, were dumb. So much stupid shit
happens these days that I am inclined to agree
with them. There's a reason we are a
'representational democracy'.
\_ I'm aware of that and the FF were right. But
the country was much smaller then and I don't
think they foresaw half a dozen states of 50
determining the POTUS with no realistic say
for the rest of the country. Going to county
sized voting blocks would still be
representational without going 100% democracy.
\_ I take it back, you're not a moron, you're a
disingenuous tool.
\_ Who cares what you think? You've yet to post
anything that could be mistaken for rational
thought or adding value to this discussion.
of the current system of Red/Blue states where if
you're in the "wrong color" state your vote has no
power. It is not a power grab. I don't care which
"color" President gets elected. I want votes to
count. What do *you* want? You want "your guy"
whoever that is to be in office no matter how they
got there. *That* is what power grabbing is about.
\_ Stating the fact that Giuliani's campaign was
leading the push is not an ad hominem. Stating
that it is a naked political push to crack CA's
electoral vote bloc is not either. Saying "I
don't like it because Giuliani's a doo doo head"
would be, but no one said such a thing. The
\_ In context, it was clearly meant as "G.
came up with this so it must be bad".
\_ Bullshit. You're laying your opinion
of the matter on others' comments.
\_ Welcome to the motd. Ready to play?
other two states that break up their votes along
district lines each have 3 electoral votes. For
them it makes sense to do this so they can grab
attention from the candidates. For CA it would
\_ 3 votes isn't attention grabbing.
\_ In a tight race, it can be.
\_ "In a tight race your vote might
count, maybe, otherwise screw you."
That isn't what our voting system
was supposed to be like.
\_ I don't see how you've put any
proposal forward which would change
this.
\_ I stated I think we should do
it by county or by voting
district or polling place or
whatever instead of as giant
state sized blocks. I've also
explained why I think this will
improve voter 'value' in more
than the current top 6 states.
\_ If the race isn't tight,
your vote still wouldn't
count.
be a sacrifice of the state's sway in electoral
politics. I would tend to agree with an amendment
\_ We have no sway. We're the bank for the
party who comes through here doing no
campaigning at all because they know our
votes don't matter. They just take our
money.
to institute such a change nationwide, though it
would be a big bite out of the 10th.. I would
also agree with abolishing the electoral college,
but that's just me. --scotsman
\_ I'm not saying CA should be the only state
doing it. I'd go for a nationwide change.
But not doing it out of pure partisan power
play politics puts party before nation. I
have no interest in that. Nation first.
\_ How would the nation be better off if
California (and only California) split
its electoral votes? -tom
\_ It would bring candidates here to
earn our votes because it would
suddenly matter. Other states would
see that and follow suit. Voila!
Now everyone's vote matters more and
the nation is better off.
\_ With us voting last and our
primaries near last, the elections
are often 'called' before they even
get to us. Granted recent years
much of this has changed.
\_ That's another story. As a CA
resident our insanely late
voting date always irked me.
This time we're Feb 5th only
a few weeks after the first
votes take place so we finally
get a say in things. We're
still the bankroll for both
parties and they don't
campaign here at all but at
least our votes might count
for something.
\_ The Democrats have been
campaigning like mad in
California, where have you
been? Each major candidate
has been to the Bay Area
alone in the last six weeks.
\_ Proud statements, but it's not a
persuasive argument for CA switching.
Politics is the process by which the
nation runs. Go find a benevolent
monarchy if'n you don't like it.
\_ See my response to tom just above.
But I do find your "love it or leave
it" line amusing. I wonder if you
see the irony in that statement in a
dicussion of how to better run our
representational democracy. :-)
\_ In your argument, you've decided
to reject the process that under-
pins democracy out of hand. I
wonder if you see the irony in
thinking you're astute enough
to declare something ironic.
Are you the same person who
claimed "earmarks" == "pork"?
\_ In what way have I rejected the
process that underpins
democracy? Au contraire mon
frere! I want more people in
more places (all places) to
know their vote is valued.
\_ You reject "politics". We
are a representative
democracy. Do you support
Mike Gravel's direct
democracy initiative?
\_ Eh, I'm gonna have to go with !tom on this one.
Maraland passed a similar law with the stipulation
"when enough other states change to swing the
electoral college." To do it in just one state
is whack. That said, yeah CA is WAY too large.
\_ Sure, but if you split it into NorCal/SoCal,
SFBA and LA would still be the 500lb.
gorillas.
\_ That's only because human beings should
have more of an effect on the electoral
process than dirt does. -tom
\_ What? Dirt? Huh?
\_ The Bay Area has people.
Modoc County has dirt. -tom
\_ So you think people in Modoc County
shouldn't count? LA has way more
people than SF. By your logic, we
should only count LA's votes. Oh,
and San Jose since they have more
people than SF, too.
\_ If Modoc, Salinas, King, Fresno,
San Diego, and Orange all swing
against LA, LA loses.
\_ Ok, and so? It takes 6
counties, 2 of them heavily
populated to top LA. What
is wrong with that?
\_ Nothing. It just proves
that people count more
than dirt.
\_ So you disapprove of the Senate?
\_ As arbitrary divisions of
representation go, this one
is still oddly more repre-
sentative than are Districts.
\_ You're inconsistent (or
you're inconsistent with
tom). Either dirt counts or
it doesn't.
\_ You're beating a straw
man. Note that I said
"more of an effect." -tom
\_ And in the Senate, the
dirt matters more than
the people.
\_ If so, Alaska would
get more Senators
than RI.
\_ Arguably, the Senate
is neither about dirt
or ppl, just arb. pol.
distinctions. -pp
\- Trying to get this implemented ni a large state with a
long history of voting for a particular party is patently
unfair unless coupled with a number states whose combined
electoral votes show a similarly strong record voting for
the other party. I could agree with legislation to divide
CA's electoral votes by popular vote if that condition was
met. The alternative of course, is implementation over
all states.
Were third (and nth) parties considered as well?
\_ You may wish to peruse:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/andrew-gelman-w.html |
http://csua.com/feed/