4 ms·

Such a great and novel idea. I'm sure there are holes in it but the principle is excellent.

gen220 6y ago
Thank you! I hope my government teacher would be proud. :) I'd love to hear anybody poke holes in this idea. It's a recent one for me. I'm sure they exist, but I haven't come up with them yet. Obviously, there's the incentive for fraudulent votes. But there's already an incentive for fraudulent votes, and it doesn't seem to cause much of a problem.
- patentatt 6y ago
  One additional thought: it may be appropriate then to have an option for a ‘present’ vote or the like to allow those who wish to protest their options on the ballot still be counted. I suppose that’s a write-in ballot, however? Also, it seems to disadvantage populations that have disproportionate bias towards non-voting. I’m thinking areas of lower socioeconomic status, even with as many pro-voting initiatives as can be, will still ultimately be undercounted.
  - salawat 6y ago
    I've long been in favor of the vote of no-confidence. I'm not sure what the system should do with it, (I'd like it to have some teeth) but alas, I'm uncertain as to it's efficacy.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > I'd love to hear anybody poke holes in this idea. I really like the idea, but I'll volunteer to offer the criticism you'll probably hear. If a state can give itself more power by counting more votes, then state governments which are confident that their dominant party will win will have a lot of incentive to allow fraudulent votes, and potentially a lot to gain. For example, if the state government knows that 70% of voters will vote for the Yellow Party, then they can risk encouraging 10% of the population to cast, say, 4 extra votes (for their deceased grandparents), without worrying that the dreaded Purple Party might exploit this laxness and give Purple the win. Combine that with some selective enforcement (so Purple voters know that, in practice, only they are at risk of prosecution for voter fraud) and the state will be able to magnify its relative strength compared to states that are more scrupulous.
  - tome 6y ago
    And it works the other way, too. There will be a disincentive for Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California to vote. Their vote for their more favoured party would increase the congressional power of their less favoured party!
    - gen220 6y ago
      Yeah, I think the system would would have to go hand-in-hand with proportional representation (similar to how Bundestag seats are allotted in Germany). So, if 80% of you 100-seat state votes, 80% voted X and 20% voted Y, you'd get 64 X's and 16 Y's. This way, both parties are incentivized to vote. Instead of today. In my opinion, it's harmful to our democracy that members of the "losing party" feel zero incentive to turn out on election day. It encourages disengagement and disillusionment, not to mention the polarization of the electorate. In Germany, the "crazy parties" get some seats, so their voices are heard. It has a pacification affect on the mainstream parties.
  - gen220 6y ago
    > then they can risk encouraging 10% of the population to cast, say, 4 extra votes (for their deceased grandparents), without worrying that the dreaded Purple Party might exploit this laxness and give Purple the win. The calculus of voter fraud will definitely change. But I don't know. In order for an individual to commit voter fraud, they have to believe that the benefit is worth the risk them as an individual. And, for the individual, voter fraud would only "work" to the extent that they think everyone else will do it too. I intuitively feel that voter fraud is a much bigger bogeyman than people make it out to be. I think the bigger fear is corruption of the election commission; such that they turn a blind eye to or even contribute to voter fraud. Of course, no system is incorruptible, and the test for acceptance shouldn't be perfection, but improvement over the status quo (this idea of iteration is the cornerstone of our constitution). That being said, I'm not convinced that the voter fraud risk makes this proposal more corrupt than the system we currently have. Voter fraud is an easier problem to solve than voter suppression, IMO.
    - 6y ago

Thank you! I hope my government teacher would be proud. :) I'd love to hear anybody poke holes in this idea. It's a recent one for me. I'm sure they exist, but I haven't come up with them yet. Obviously, there's the incentive for fraudulent votes. But there's already an incentive for fraudulent votes, and it doesn't seem to cause much of a problem.

patentatt 6y ago
One additional thought: it may be appropriate then to have an option for a ‘present’ vote or the like to allow those who wish to protest their options on the ballot still be counted. I suppose that’s a write-in ballot, however? Also, it seems to disadvantage populations that have disproportionate bias towards non-voting. I’m thinking areas of lower socioeconomic status, even with as many pro-voting initiatives as can be, will still ultimately be undercounted.
- salawat 6y ago
  I've long been in favor of the vote of no-confidence. I'm not sure what the system should do with it, (I'd like it to have some teeth) but alas, I'm uncertain as to it's efficacy.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> I'd love to hear anybody poke holes in this idea. I really like the idea, but I'll volunteer to offer the criticism you'll probably hear. If a state can give itself more power by counting more votes, then state governments which are confident that their dominant party will win will have a lot of incentive to allow fraudulent votes, and potentially a lot to gain. For example, if the state government knows that 70% of voters will vote for the Yellow Party, then they can risk encouraging 10% of the population to cast, say, 4 extra votes (for their deceased grandparents), without worrying that the dreaded Purple Party might exploit this laxness and give Purple the win. Combine that with some selective enforcement (so Purple voters know that, in practice, only they are at risk of prosecution for voter fraud) and the state will be able to magnify its relative strength compared to states that are more scrupulous.
- tome 6y ago
  And it works the other way, too. There will be a disincentive for Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California to vote. Their vote for their more favoured party would increase the congressional power of their less favoured party!
  - gen220 6y ago
    Yeah, I think the system would would have to go hand-in-hand with proportional representation (similar to how Bundestag seats are allotted in Germany). So, if 80% of you 100-seat state votes, 80% voted X and 20% voted Y, you'd get 64 X's and 16 Y's. This way, both parties are incentivized to vote. Instead of today. In my opinion, it's harmful to our democracy that members of the "losing party" feel zero incentive to turn out on election day. It encourages disengagement and disillusionment, not to mention the polarization of the electorate. In Germany, the "crazy parties" get some seats, so their voices are heard. It has a pacification affect on the mainstream parties.
- gen220 6y ago
  > then they can risk encouraging 10% of the population to cast, say, 4 extra votes (for their deceased grandparents), without worrying that the dreaded Purple Party might exploit this laxness and give Purple the win. The calculus of voter fraud will definitely change. But I don't know. In order for an individual to commit voter fraud, they have to believe that the benefit is worth the risk them as an individual. And, for the individual, voter fraud would only "work" to the extent that they think everyone else will do it too. I intuitively feel that voter fraud is a much bigger bogeyman than people make it out to be. I think the bigger fear is corruption of the election commission; such that they turn a blind eye to or even contribute to voter fraud. Of course, no system is incorruptible, and the test for acceptance shouldn't be perfection, but improvement over the status quo (this idea of iteration is the cornerstone of our constitution). That being said, I'm not convinced that the voter fraud risk makes this proposal more corrupt than the system we currently have. Voter fraud is an easier problem to solve than voter suppression, IMO.
  - 6y ago