5 ms·

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters

by entee 11y ago

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely. On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?

throweway 11y ago
How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia
- DanBC 11y ago
  In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.
  - specialist 11y ago
    Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.
- e12e 11y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The trouble with the Australian 'VAP' number is Australia has a very large percentage on non-citizens. It seems from the data that they have divided the votes by the total population rather than the number of Australian citizens.
    - specialist 11y ago
      Good eye. Noting that VAP is appropriate for international comparisons. Domestically, it also informs policy, like enfranchisement thru citizenship. Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. I support enfranchising pretty much everyone, especially for local issues.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        It is very easy to become a citizen of Australia once you are a permanent resident - the large number of non-citizens is a personal choice of the people involved. It is an interesting question if the vote should be extended to non-citizens. I can see good and bad aspects to doing so and I am not sure which is more important.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        > Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. For reasons of equality among the states, the US capital is not located in any of them. The District of Columbia, not being a state, doesn't have the privileges of a state either, such as being represented in the US government. This is not easy to fix; giving DC state privileges would be a severe blow to the idea that the federal government doesn't favor any one state over another. It still gets taxed, though. People are sore enough about this that when someone submitted the suggestion of "no taxation without representation" for the slogan on DC license plates, it was vetoed by DC government for being "too controversial". I would actually be OK with saying that DC doesn't get taxed, since they're legally prohibited from participating in the government. But I don't think that's a widespread viewpoint. Do you have an opinion?
danieltillett 11y ago
Once you make the connection between the representatives and the votes more personal you will increase the likelihood of voting. As a voter you are not voting for someone you don't know, but for "good old joe" who you speak to every couple of months. The idea is to not solve every problem with democracy, but to remove the corrupting influence of needing to raise money from vested interests to spend on advertising so you can get elected. This is the major problem.
- specialist 11y ago
  The number one driver for voting participation is competitive races. Hence the need for redistricting which maximizes competitiveness. Unlike every other modern democracy, the US has opt-in voting. To the best of my knowledge, universal voting registration does not increase participation. But it does prevent disenfranchisement. Only compulsory voting would (otherwise) increase participation. Some of our jurisdictions have switched to all postal balloting. This permits ballot chasing. In general, these campaigns no longer attempt to persuade. (Clinton vs Sanders is a notable exception, because most contests are face to face.) They spend most of the money on GOTV (get out the vote), turning out your base (supporters). Which has led to alienating voters. No one likes to be contacted 30 times per election (4 times a year) to be reminded to mail their ballot. Postal balloting has also harmed the culture of voting. This intangible is very hard to measure. But some studies show that "I voted" style markers, visible to your friends and family, boost voter participation.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I agree with you that postal voting is very harmful practice to democracy. The solution to people not having time to get off work to vote is not postal voting, but to move the date to a weekend or holiday.
Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
Moving to proportional representation would greatly curtail gerrymandering or even eliminate it altogether, especially with some sort of ranked voting system. It also solves the third party problem; no longer does a vote for the Green party hurt the Democratic candidate or a Libertarian vote hurt the Republican candidate. IIRC Spain has a system along these lines. First past the post needs to go.
- specialist 11y ago
  PR tackles assemblies, councils, houses. +1 Approval voting is best for executive positions, like governor, mayor, sheriff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting -- FPTP is terrible. Among other reasons, per Duverger's Law, it begats a two party system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law People railing against duopolies (Democrats & Republicans) haven't yet learned it's the result of the form of elections, not a natural law.
  - ClayShentrup 11y ago
    https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
  - ClayShentrup 11y ago
    You can do proportional Approval Voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jS7b-0PV9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jS7b-0PV9E
maxerickson 11y ago
We should remove the importance of the primaries. Anyone that wants to be on a ballot for a particular position should have to do the same thing as anyone else (probably collecting a modest number of signatures on a petition, maybe with some rules to limit the number of candidates). I guess parties might be allowed to place an endorsement on a ballot, but if not they could still release a list of endorsements. In that arrangement, contesting the national delegate convention to get the endorsement of the party might still happen, but it would not be so inordinately important. A party organization would still be hugely useful in getting wide ballot presence, but an incumbent organization would not have the huge advantages that they enjoy today.

by entee 11y ago

throweway 11y ago

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

DanBC 11y ago
In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.
- specialist 11y ago
  Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.
danieltillett 11y ago
Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.
e12e 11y ago
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The trouble with the Australian 'VAP' number is Australia has a very large percentage on non-citizens. It seems from the data that they have divided the votes by the total population rather than the number of Australian citizens.
  - specialist 11y ago
    Good eye. Noting that VAP is appropriate for international comparisons. Domestically, it also informs policy, like enfranchisement thru citizenship. Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. I support enfranchising pretty much everyone, especially for local issues.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      It is very easy to become a citizen of Australia once you are a permanent resident - the large number of non-citizens is a personal choice of the people involved. It is an interesting question if the vote should be extended to non-citizens. I can see good and bad aspects to doing so and I am not sure which is more important.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      > Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. For reasons of equality among the states, the US capital is not located in any of them. The District of Columbia, not being a state, doesn't have the privileges of a state either, such as being represented in the US government. This is not easy to fix; giving DC state privileges would be a severe blow to the idea that the federal government doesn't favor any one state over another. It still gets taxed, though. People are sore enough about this that when someone submitted the suggestion of "no taxation without representation" for the slogan on DC license plates, it was vetoed by DC government for being "too controversial". I would actually be OK with saying that DC doesn't get taxed, since they're legally prohibited from participating in the government. But I don't think that's a widespread viewpoint. Do you have an opinion?

danieltillett 11y ago

Once you make the connection between the representatives and the votes more personal you will increase the likelihood of voting. As a voter you are not voting for someone you don't know, but for "good old joe" who you speak to every couple of months. The idea is to not solve every problem with democracy, but to remove the corrupting influence of needing to raise money from vested interests to spend on advertising so you can get elected. This is the major problem.

specialist 11y ago
The number one driver for voting participation is competitive races. Hence the need for redistricting which maximizes competitiveness. Unlike every other modern democracy, the US has opt-in voting. To the best of my knowledge, universal voting registration does not increase participation. But it does prevent disenfranchisement. Only compulsory voting would (otherwise) increase participation. Some of our jurisdictions have switched to all postal balloting. This permits ballot chasing. In general, these campaigns no longer attempt to persuade. (Clinton vs Sanders is a notable exception, because most contests are face to face.) They spend most of the money on GOTV (get out the vote), turning out your base (supporters). Which has led to alienating voters. No one likes to be contacted 30 times per election (4 times a year) to be reminded to mail their ballot. Postal balloting has also harmed the culture of voting. This intangible is very hard to measure. But some studies show that "I voted" style markers, visible to your friends and family, boost voter participation.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I agree with you that postal voting is very harmful practice to democracy. The solution to people not having time to get off work to vote is not postal voting, but to move the date to a weekend or holiday.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago

Moving to proportional representation would greatly curtail gerrymandering or even eliminate it altogether, especially with some sort of ranked voting system. It also solves the third party problem; no longer does a vote for the Green party hurt the Democratic candidate or a Libertarian vote hurt the Republican candidate. IIRC Spain has a system along these lines. First past the post needs to go.

specialist 11y ago
PR tackles assemblies, councils, houses. +1 Approval voting is best for executive positions, like governor, mayor, sheriff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting -- FPTP is terrible. Among other reasons, per Duverger's Law, it begats a two party system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law People railing against duopolies (Democrats & Republicans) haven't yet learned it's the result of the form of elections, not a natural law.
- ClayShentrup 11y ago
  https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
- ClayShentrup 11y ago
  You can do proportional Approval Voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jS7b-0PV9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jS7b-0PV9E

maxerickson 11y ago

We should remove the importance of the primaries. Anyone that wants to be on a ballot for a particular position should have to do the same thing as anyone else (probably collecting a modest number of signatures on a petition, maybe with some rules to limit the number of candidates). I guess parties might be allowed to place an endorsement on a ballot, but if not they could still release a list of endorsements. In that arrangement, contesting the national delegate convention to get the endorsement of the party might still happen, but it would not be so inordinately important. A party organization would still be hugely useful in getting wide ballot presence, but an incumbent organization would not have the huge advantages that they enjoy today.