Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Mar '12 02:16
    March 18-22. Likely Republican voters. Nationwide.

    Romney 40%
    Santorum 27%
    Gingrich 14%
    Paul 8%

    Could Paul win the presidency as a third party candidate?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153422/Romney-Expands-National-GOP-Lead.aspx
  2. 28 Mar '12 02:18
    Originally posted by moon1969
    March 18-22. Likely Republican voters. Nationwide.

    Romney 40%
    Santorum 27%
    Gingrich 14%
    Paul 8%

    Could Paul win the presidency as a third party candidate?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153422/Romney-Expands-National-GOP-Lead.aspx
    No, he can win only as a 4rth party candidate.
  3. 28 Mar '12 13:00
    Originally posted by moon1969
    March 18-22. Likely Republican voters. Nationwide.

    Romney 40%
    Santorum 27%
    Gingrich 14%
    Paul 8%

    Could Paul win the presidency as a third party candidate?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153422/Romney-Expands-National-GOP-Lead.aspx
    Only with election reform

    http://www.instantrunoff.com/

    Until IRV is implemented, democracy in this country is a farce.
  4. 28 Mar '12 15:41
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Only with election reform

    http://www.instantrunoff.com/

    Until IRV is implemented, democracy in this country is a farce.
    What's wrong with proportional representation?
  5. 28 Mar '12 16:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    No, he can win only as a 4rth party candidate.
    Ha ha
  6. 28 Mar '12 16:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's wrong with proportional representation?
    Candidates can get elected without a majority of the vote.

    It also causes what I call wasted vote syndrome. People let polls dictate who they vote for because they are convinced if they vote for candidates that are trailing in the polls it is a waste of their vote. I don't believe that way of thinking is rational, but many people think that way.
  7. 28 Mar '12 16:58
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Candidates can get elected without a majority of the vote.

    It also causes what I call wasted vote syndrome. People let polls dictate who they vote for because they are convinced if they vote for candidates that are trailing in the polls it is a waste of their vote. I don't believe that way of thinking is rational, but many people think that way.
    Look up what proportional representation means.
  8. 28 Mar '12 18:02
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's wrong with proportional representation?
    Are you talking about like in a parlimentarian system.
  9. 28 Mar '12 18:09
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Only with election reform

    http://www.instantrunoff.com/

    Until IRV is implemented, democracy in this country is a farce.
    Many scholars argue that not only is it a bad system of choosing victors in elections, but it is also unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. Also, the analysis can depend on the actual scheme used in an IRV. Generally, is the consideration of what happens when every candidate's votes end up being tallied and we only drop the one with the lowest vote total? "It is quite a bad outcome as we demonstrate [in our paper]."

    However, under the system adopted by the State Board of Elections [in North Carolina], the results are even worse. If the top two candidates are the only ones to advance to the "final round", it is still not clear that the system will result in the same outcome as under the runoff system (the only other system in use other than just using the "first past the post" method, i.e., whoever has the most votes wins).

    The first issue is that it will not solve the 50% threshold in any case. There is no guarantee that any candidate is named on 50% of the ballots. Second, IRV will effectively disenfranchise voters in a way that the runoff system will not. Under a runoff system, I can choose to engage in the runoff election or can choose to stay home. Under IRV, I lose that choice. If I failed to pick either of the top two candidates as one of my top three choices, I am effectively disenfranchised, even if I have a real preference for one or the other. By having the voting system choose which voters have their votes count and which voters do not have their votes count, the effect is proxy voting--and worse, it is the proxy vote of the voting system that is cast, not the proxy vote of the voter.


    Source: http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/100953
  10. 28 Mar '12 18:12 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Only with election reform

    http://www.instantrunoff.com/

    Until IRV is implemented, democracy in this country is a farce.
    Large segments of the voting population are being disenfranchised by Instant Runoff Voting. A review of various studies showing the results.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvwXzQyGgQM

    Many other forms of Ranked-Choice Voting exist such as Buckland, Borda, Condorcet, etc. Some assert that IRV is one of the worst of the RCVs because it throws away most information on the ballots.
  11. 28 Mar '12 18:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Candidates can get elected without a majority of the vote.

    It also causes what I call wasted vote syndrome. People let polls dictate who they vote for because they are convinced if they vote for candidates that are trailing in the polls it is a waste of their vote. I don't believe that way of thinking is rational, but many people think that way.
    In my opinion, I do not think IRV is the cure-all or even desirable. Though I agree you have a legitimate position in your support of IRV. I just do not think it clear.

    A well-written law review article entitled "Instant Runoff Voting: A Cure That Is Likely Worse than the Disease"

    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1293&context=wmlr


    CONCLUSION

    Elected officials should refrain from passing instant runoff voting legislation. Despite its theoretical promise to improve elections, instant runoff voting is a potentially illegal reform with unclear benefits, probable negative side effects, and possible unintended consequences. Courts and administrative officials will likely determine that instant runoff voting is inconsistent with election laws in the many states that require majority winners. Additionally, instant runoff voting statutes may violate state constitutions that require the election winner to be the candidate who receives the most votes. Even if instant runoff voting can clear these legal hurdles, it is not at all clear that it will be able to provide the unambiguous mandates, cheaper elections, and increased voter turnout that its supporters claim. Instead, instant runoff voting will likely result in confusion, uncertainty, and instability, making "the cure [likely] worse than the disease."
  12. 28 Mar '12 18:38
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's wrong with proportional representation?
    You are implying I think there is something "wrong" with proportional representation. I never suggested that.

    If you think proportional representation is superior than IRV make your case. What do you think is so great about proportional representation?
  13. 28 Mar '12 18:41
    Originally posted by moon1969
    In my opinion, I do not think IRV is the cure-all or even desirable. Though I agree you have a legitimate position in your support of IRV. I just do not think it clear.

    A well-written law review article entitled "Instant Runoff Voting: A Cure That Is Likely Worse than the Disease"

    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1293&contex ...[text shortened]... on, uncertainty, and instability, making "the cure [likely] worse than the disease."[/quote]
    Bullcrap!

    Show me the evidence.
  14. 28 Mar '12 18:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Bullcrap!

    Show me the evidence.
    I just gave three posts with links. Did you watch the video presentation showing evidence, or read the law review article?
  15. 29 Mar '12 01:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I just gave three posts with links. Did you watch the video presentation showing evidence, or read the law review article?
    I think I lost flash player or something