4 ms·

I like your points, I do think this is a big piece of the picture. I almost wish the polls let you vote either "for" a candidate or directly "against" a particu

I like your points, I do think this is a big piece of the picture. I almost wish the polls let you vote either "for" a candidate or directly "against" a particular candidate - I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump.

Nadya 10y ago
>I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump. That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump. E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  I think I see what you're saying, though you might have meant that those who voted "for" Clinton would have rather voted "against" Trump. It's true, all variations would see votes and I think that would speak better to who actually had a larger base of people truly voting "for" the message of a candidate.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    Yes, I copy/pasted then forgot to change a variable. When will coders learn, eh? :) I've fixed it and noted the fix. I also agree it would paint a more accurate political picture, less black and white.
    - deadringerr 10y ago
      No problem, I understood what you meant. :)
eru 10y ago
You want Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
MattyRad 10y ago
Stein suggested an interesting solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s. Food for thought.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to see some version of this (or range voting as referred to in another comment) implemented in a state and the reactions of the population - if voters felt like this more properly reflected their opinion.

Nadya 10y ago

>I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump. That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump. E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.

deadringerr 10y ago
I think I see what you're saying, though you might have meant that those who voted "for" Clinton would have rather voted "against" Trump. It's true, all variations would see votes and I think that would speak better to who actually had a larger base of people truly voting "for" the message of a candidate.
- Nadya 10y ago
  Yes, I copy/pasted then forgot to change a variable. When will coders learn, eh? :) I've fixed it and noted the fix. I also agree it would paint a more accurate political picture, less black and white.
  - deadringerr 10y ago
    No problem, I understood what you meant. :)

eru 10y ago

You want Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/

MattyRad 10y ago

Stein suggested an interesting solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s. Food for thought.

deadringerr 10y ago
Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to see some version of this (or range voting as referred to in another comment) implemented in a state and the reactions of the population - if voters felt like this more properly reflected their opinion.