4 ms·

> Instead of reading “Vote for one,” the ballot instructs voters to “Vote for as many as you approve of.” So they've changed it from vote for one to vote for z

> Instead of reading “Vote for one,” the ballot instructs voters to “Vote for as many as you approve of.” So they've changed it from vote for one to vote for zero. Thanks but it's been a long time since a politician I approved of made it onto my ballot. Better wording would be "Vote for as many of the lesser evils as you want." Otherwise I have to lie in order to vote.

gowld 5y ago
Voting for 0 has always been acceptable.
- polka_haunts_us 5y ago
  There's a significant difference between "Not Voting" and "Voting for 0". Other than Nevada, most states don't allow "Voting for 0". The closest thing we get is writing in Mickey Mouse where writeins are allowed.
  - jesterpm 5y ago
    That surprises me. You can add Washington state to the list that allow voting for none of the candidates[1]. [1]: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Changing the voting system changes the incentives for different kinds of candidates to run. Suppose right now you have a Democrat, a Republican and a moderate. In first past the post, the moderate splits the vote with whichever major party candidate is most like them, causing the one less like them to win. Also, everybody knows this and then only votes for one of the major parties. So then the moderate doesn't bother to run and the only thing on the ballot is the one evil or the other. With approval voting, if the moderate runs, most of the Republicans approve of the Republican and the moderate (because better the moderate than the Democrat) and most of the Democrats approve of the Democrat and the moderate (because better the moderate than the Republican). So then the moderate runs, and wins. And you get a candidate you might actually want to vote for.
nitrogen 5y ago
This comment has an interesting solution to that problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270854

gowld 5y ago

Voting for 0 has always been acceptable.

polka_haunts_us 5y ago
There's a significant difference between "Not Voting" and "Voting for 0". Other than Nevada, most states don't allow "Voting for 0". The closest thing we get is writing in Mickey Mouse where writeins are allowed.
- jesterpm 5y ago
  That surprises me. You can add Washington state to the list that allow voting for none of the candidates[1]. [1]: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

Changing the voting system changes the incentives for different kinds of candidates to run. Suppose right now you have a Democrat, a Republican and a moderate. In first past the post, the moderate splits the vote with whichever major party candidate is most like them, causing the one less like them to win. Also, everybody knows this and then only votes for one of the major parties. So then the moderate doesn't bother to run and the only thing on the ballot is the one evil or the other. With approval voting, if the moderate runs, most of the Republicans approve of the Republican and the moderate (because better the moderate than the Democrat) and most of the Democrats approve of the Democrat and the moderate (because better the moderate than the Republican). So then the moderate runs, and wins. And you get a candidate you might actually want to vote for.

nitrogen 5y ago

This comment has an interesting solution to that problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270854