The runoff vote, also known as the alternate voting system.

[treee]

Since most rational Americans seem to be dissatisfied with our two party system, one potential fix is the run-off vote. Here is a quick little video explaining the runoff vote.

[Belsnickel]

Yeah, I tried bringing this up before. I am definitely in favor of getting rid of our first past the post system.

[fredtoast]

I think that the Representatives from each state should run as "at large" instead of from specific districts then we could take the top vote getters based on the number of reps each state gets.

[treee]

(08-17-2016, 10:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think that the Representatives from each state should run as "at large" instead of from specific districts then we could take the top vote getters based on the number of reps each state gets.

Wouldn't this lead to people in some areas being completely unrepresented? 

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 11:03 PM)treee Wrote: Wouldn't this lead to people in some areas being completely unrepresented? 

No.  It would be a statewide election.  Everyone in the state could vote.

[Belsnickel]

(08-17-2016, 11:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It would be a statewide election.  Everyone in the state could vote.

I posted these videos before in the thread I created on the subject, but here is a link where all of them are. It talks about alternative methods that could potentially created a more representative republic.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

[6andcounting]

(08-17-2016, 11:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It would be a statewide election.  Everyone in the state could vote.

There's 50 - 60 counties in Pennsylvania. Nearly a 3rd of the state population are in the 5 counties surrounding Philadelphia. Throw in Allegheny county and over 40% of the population are in 6 counties. Throw in some of the counties surrounding Allegheny county and you gonna have have half the population in a dozen or so counties that surround the only two major metropolitan cities in the state.

Not totally in favor of the current system but allow a a small number of large cities run the entire state isn't going to leave everybody represented.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I posted these videos before in the thread I created on the subject, but here is a link where all of them are. It talks about alternative methods that could potentially created a more representative republic.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

Rep.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2016, 10:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Rep.

I should also point out among those videos that the alternative voting system combined with single transferable vote seems that it would be the most effective for a truly representative republic. The idea of statewide elections for HoR seems simpler, but having a local rep can be important.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 10:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  The idea of statewide elections for HoR seems simpler, but having a local rep can be important.

Maybe in theory, but I see gerrymandering as one of the biggest problems we have in elections.  So my suggestion kills two birds with one stone.

The big problem I see with my plan is that you could end up giving the same weight (one vote in the House) to a guy who got 60% of the vote and a guy who got 25%.

There are some kinks that need to be worked out in the alternative plans, but I think we both agree that the current system is flawed.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2016, 11:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe in theory, but I see gerrymandering as one of the biggest problems we have in elections.  So my suggestion kills two birds with one stone.

The big problem I see with my plan is that you could end up giving the same weight (one vote in the House) to a guy who got 60% of the vote and a guy who got 25%.

There are some kinks that need to be worked out in the alternative plans, but I think we both agree that the current system is flawed.

Applying STV on a statewide level could be one solution to what you are talking about. I think one of the big issues with doing statewide is that people perceive someone that lives in their area as being more responsive to their needs. Even though all of us know this is horse shit and that our elected representatives are not responsive to our concerns/needs at all anyway, it's something that the whole idea of the HoR is really rooted upon. That the representatives are there for their little corner of the country and are supposed to be their voice.

We have 11 districts in Virginia. Were we to have statewide elections for the HoR, all of those on the ballot would be from Hampton Roads, Richmond, and NoVA. There would be no one representing the Shenandoah Valley, SW Virginia, or southern Virginia. The cultures, concerns, needs, etc., are much different in our regions than the more metro areas. So while there would be 11 representatives still, they would be concentrated from those metro areas leaving the more rural areas unrepresented.



We only have people in 5, 6, and 9 because they have to be in order to run for office in our districts.

[*bfine32*]

What's wrong with one person-one vote?

I don't think the problem is how we vote, the problem is who we vote. The Parties need to be restructured or abolished completely.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What's wrong with one person-one vote?

I don't think the problem is how we vote, the problem is who we vote. The Parties need to be restructured or abolished completely.

The alternative voting method is still one person one vote. Your vote only counts for one candidate when it all works out. Just if your first choice has no chance of winning your vote goes to your second choice as that first choice is removed from the list during the count, and so on. You're not wrong that who we vote for is a problem, but it's a fact that first-past-the-post elections do not lead to the most representative government we can achieve.

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The Parties need to be restructured or abolished completely.

Sooooo much this.
Abolish parties and have candidates run purely on their own merit.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What's wrong with one person-one vote?

I don't think the problem is how we vote, the problem is who we vote. The Parties need to be restructured or abolished completely.

Political parties are private entities.  I don't think we can just make them illegal.  People with common interests are always going to be drawn together.

And the problem with the current system is that the two major parties have a stranglehold on the money and power required to eliminate competition.  

[Benton]

(08-17-2016, 11:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It would be a statewide election.  Everyone in the state could vote.

Eh, I don't think that would work for Kentucky. We've got two completely different sides of the state (mostly poor and mostly coal on the east and mostly middle class and river/tourism in the west). You've got some industry in the middle. And through it all, you've got 120 counties, with 4.4 million people. Roughly 25% are in Jefferson and Fayette counties. About 20% of the population lives the in the contiguous counties.

So there's very different needs across the state, and very different economies, but nearly half the people live in a very small area (in respect to the size of the state) of northern Kentucky. It wouldn't be very likely for candidates from the western or eastern ends to stand a realistic chance of getting elected as "hometown" people from the center of the state. Why would someone in central Kentucky (which has higher incomes and less perceived need for the river industry) vote for a guy from western Kentucky running on a platform of expanding the locks to increase the river industry?

I talked to one of our state legislators about a lock problem we've got here (basically, federal funding keeps getting pushed to other Corps projects in larger areas and it's delayed a lock expansion by a decade, costing several million more dollars to complete). The problem, according to him, is you've only got about 6 counties out of 120 and a couple other state senators out of 40 that even know it's an issue. But something like coal gets more of their attention because it effects 13-14 out 40, even though, economically, the river industry in Kentucky isn't that far off from coal.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 11:56 AM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I don't think that would work for Kentucky. We've got two completely different sides of the state (mostly poor and mostly coal on the east and mostly middle class and river/tourism in the west). You've got some industry in the middle. And through it all, you've got 120 counties, with 4.4 million people. Roughly 25% are in Jefferson and Fayette counties. About 20% of the population lives the in the contiguous counties.

So there's very different needs across the state, and very different economies, but nearly half the people live in a very small area (in respect to the size of the state) of northern Kentucky. It wouldn't be very likely for candidates from the western or eastern ends to stand a realistic chance of getting elected as "hometown" people from the center of the state. Why would someone in central Kentucky (which has higher incomes and less perceived need for the river industry) vote for a guy from western Kentucky running on a platform of expanding the locks to increase the river industry?

I talked to one of our state legislators about a lock problem we've got here (basically, federal funding keeps getting pushed to other Corps projects in larger areas and it's delayed a lock expansion by a decade, costing several million more dollars to complete). The problem, according to him, is you've only got about 6 counties out of 120 and a couple other state senators out of 40 that even know it's an issue. But something like coal gets more of their attention because it effects 13-14 out 40, even though, economically, the river industry in Kentucky isn't that far off from coal.

But the whole point of my plan would be for the minorities to still get a shot at having a representative by not just taking the first place finisher.  If all the rural voters selected the same guy then he should finish in the top 6 of the vote and still be elected.

[BmorePat87]

To address what Fred suggested, I think the reality is people these days vote less for "who is going to work for my district" and more "who is going to work for my party". So it's not so much a worry if areas will get represented, will ideology get represented?

I guess this system, when paired with the run off system, could allow for moderate candidates to appeal to a whole group. Or it could cause partisan candidates of one party in power to sweep.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 09:53 PM)treee Wrote: Since most rational Americans seem to be dissatisfied with our two party system, one potential fix is the run-off vote. Here is a quick little video explaining the runoff vote.

I used this method and applied it to our ISideWith results.

We had 22 voters (I couldn’t get Dino’s and Natley’s images to display) so to get a majority a candidate needs 12.

Initial results:
Clinton: .5 (we had one person that had a tie for top)
Trump: 5
Johnson: 7
Stein: 9.5
Castle: 0

So Castle and Clinton are eliminate and Clinton’s .5 vote goes to Stein. So now we are at:
Stein:10
Johnson: 7
Trump: 5

The next person eliminated is Trump. After redistributing his votes our final results were:
Johnson: 11
Stein: 11

So now what do we do, besides realize that there is no way this forum will elect the next President?

[Benton]

(08-18-2016, 12:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the whole point of my plan would be for the minorities to still get a shot at having a representative by not just taking the first place finisher.  If all the rural voters selected the same guy then he should finish in the top 6 of the vote and still be elected.

Kentucky (and I realize it varies by states) has such different rural communities. People in the western end have a very different lifestyle from the eastern end. Different industries, education problems, economies. Someone from Pike or Breathitt counties yammering about coal doesn't mean as much to somebody west of Bowling Green. Likewise, someone talking about the need to save the uranium enrichment plant in the western end isn't going to go over in coal country, where they don't care about the jobs lost.