4 ms·

I propose a simple fix for major elections such as referendums and presidential elections. I call it the "really?" approach: An election needs to get the same

I propose a simple fix for major elections such as referendums and presidential elections. I call it the "really?" approach: An election needs to get the same results twice back to back. So for instance, you could replace the primaries and November presidential elections with that system. Vote once: whoever is first needs to win the next round to become president. Candidates may decide to drop out, or not. The public knows: if on round two, they still vote for the candidate that won the first round, that's the winner. For the UK referendum, a second vote would have eliminated the protest vote. You see the results of the first vote, and you really ask yourself: really? Do I want this to happen? And vote one more time to confirm. Simple system, with one huge caveat: no guaranteed outcome. But it would eliminate the need for polling, and hopefully result in better democratic decisions.

steve19 10y ago
The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote, with a meaningless result that may or may not be representative of the entire population (because everyone knows the first vote is meaningless so why bother voting), followed by a large turnout on the second vote... and then followed by howling and wailing by which ever side loses and the demanding of a third referendum. Interesting New Zealand recently had a double/two part referendum that was reported on Hacker News (due the the complexity of changing the National flag)
- kawera 10y ago
  Unless you make voting in the first vote a pre-condition to vote on the second vote.
  - hnal943 10y ago
    to howls of "VOTER SUPRESSION!"
- zepto 10y ago
  Not necessarily - the second vote could be a ratification of outcome the first, rather than a repeat of the question.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote Would it? To pass a measure is to approve a change, so there's always a side that wins if the vote doesn't pass. Opponents of a change could defeat it on the first ballot, and would likely focus effort on doing so, especially if turnout was expected to be small -- because the first vote isn't meaningless, if it fails, the measure is dead, and there is no second vote. But because of this, supporters of the vote would also work very hard to mobilize support in the first ballot, because succeeding in it would be necessary to get to the second.
- aidos 10y ago
  The Nz referendum was a) pick a flag in round 1 and b) decide if you really want to commit to the chosen flag in round 2. It was a sensible approach given that the flag choices were so underwhelming that nobody wanted to change in the end. I guess it's a little different because you're voting for different things but I guess it's similar. Have a vote and then have the power to bail out.
halestock 10y ago
I believe the technical term for this approach is called "bicameralism".
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  No, bicameralism means you have two legislative bodies (for example, the US House and Senate). So in a sense it's the same thing, because a bill, to become law, has to be voted on (and pass) twice. But bicameralism doesn't refer to two votes by the public in order to pass one referendum or elect one person. That's... something else. I don't know what to call it, but it's not bicameralism.
kristianc 10y ago
You regularly see this happening in France with votes for the Front National and Marine Le Pen. What tends to happen is the Far Right parties do quite well in the first round of voting, at which point the parties who have been eliminated cross political divides to encourage everyone to shun the Far Right. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire#In_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire#In_politics). It's hard to say whether, on balance, this is a useful exercise. The FN is able to use this approach to present itself as the voice of the 'anti-establishment' Party, everyone is able to use the first vote as a pressure valve to let off steam and vote FN knowing there won't be any consequences too it, and there's always the risk that voters tire of Cordon Sanitaire entirely and just vote the Far Right in in the second round anyway.
cannam 10y ago
"It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine." (Herodotus on the Persians, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persians.asp http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persians...)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

steve19 10y ago

The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote, with a meaningless result that may or may not be representative of the entire population (because everyone knows the first vote is meaningless so why bother voting), followed by a large turnout on the second vote... and then followed by howling and wailing by which ever side loses and the demanding of a third referendum. Interesting New Zealand recently had a double/two part referendum that was reported on Hacker News (due the the complexity of changing the National flag)

kawera 10y ago
Unless you make voting in the first vote a pre-condition to vote on the second vote.
- hnal943 10y ago
  to howls of "VOTER SUPRESSION!"
zepto 10y ago
Not necessarily - the second vote could be a ratification of outcome the first, rather than a repeat of the question.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote Would it? To pass a measure is to approve a change, so there's always a side that wins if the vote doesn't pass. Opponents of a change could defeat it on the first ballot, and would likely focus effort on doing so, especially if turnout was expected to be small -- because the first vote isn't meaningless, if it fails, the measure is dead, and there is no second vote. But because of this, supporters of the vote would also work very hard to mobilize support in the first ballot, because succeeding in it would be necessary to get to the second.
aidos 10y ago
The Nz referendum was a) pick a flag in round 1 and b) decide if you really want to commit to the chosen flag in round 2. It was a sensible approach given that the flag choices were so underwhelming that nobody wanted to change in the end. I guess it's a little different because you're voting for different things but I guess it's similar. Have a vote and then have the power to bail out.

halestock 10y ago

I believe the technical term for this approach is called "bicameralism".

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
No, bicameralism means you have two legislative bodies (for example, the US House and Senate). So in a sense it's the same thing, because a bill, to become law, has to be voted on (and pass) twice. But bicameralism doesn't refer to two votes by the public in order to pass one referendum or elect one person. That's... something else. I don't know what to call it, but it's not bicameralism.

kristianc 10y ago

You regularly see this happening in France with votes for the Front National and Marine Le Pen. What tends to happen is the Far Right parties do quite well in the first round of voting, at which point the parties who have been eliminated cross political divides to encourage everyone to shun the Far Right. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire#In_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire#In_politics). It's hard to say whether, on balance, this is a useful exercise. The FN is able to use this approach to present itself as the voice of the 'anti-establishment' Party, everyone is able to use the first vote as a pressure valve to let off steam and vote FN knowing there won't be any consequences too it, and there's always the risk that voters tire of Cordon Sanitaire entirely and just vote the Far Right in in the second round anyway.

cannam 10y ago

"It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine." (Herodotus on the Persians, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persians.asp http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persians...)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]