Here is a radical idea I dreamed up for picking president.

[Justin]

Wow, Gene, that's really amusing. For once you're actually using the Constitution as a basis for one of your arguments.

As opposed to what you've posted regarding taxes, welfare, gun control, free speech, and the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The electoral college does not vote until after the popular vote is tallied.

If none of the above wins, the popular vote is repeated with different candidates until a human being wins.

Following this, the electoral votes would be counted, just as it is now.

 

[GeneC]

Lgm, I see you reading the references I posted and trying to extrapolate what it says in a short period of time, but tell me this , if what you think you know is true, how does the World know who won the Presidency within 24 hrs of Nov 3rd?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think until the EC actually casts votes, it is just presumed that the one who has carried the most states electoral votes is the winner. The EC has to do their part first though.

But that is beside the point, because that system would stay in place as is. Not trying to change the EC, just trying to change who is on the ballot for the EC to choose from.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The system in question is referred to as instant runoff voting. One way it can be set up is that you get a second choice on the ballet and if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote the second choices are distributed to the other candidates.

This certainly would empower 3rd party candidates and cut into the two (or one) party domination system we have now.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Actually Glocker that would be an easier way to do it.

Maybe rank the candidates in order of preference. That would let you vote for an independent without "throwing your vote away" as many hear put it.

 

[GeneC]

What is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)



IRV is not a form of full representation or proportional representation, but the Choice Voting method of full representation relies on a similar method of casting and counting ballots.


Nope, this Country has elected to use the Constitution, thank you.

Btw, lgm, this is the only culture that hasn't been 'occupied by force'.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I like the "None of the Above" /50%+1 threshhold option, BUT something about it worries me. Hillary Clinton (you remember the Jr. Senator from N.Y) has been know to advocate the abolition of the Electoral College and go straight to the popular vote. Unless there were some system of "disenfranchising" (not allowing to vote) those who do not contribute to the system via taxes, I'd be a'gin it. It's waaaaayyy to easy for the freeloaders to take over.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Riley, the Electoral College would remain in place and undisturbed; all that would change is the way we decide what candidates are on their ballot.

 

[Ivy Mike]

what do folks here think of condorcet voting or teh approval method?

Condorcet seems like a much better way to get a better representation of different ideas into the ballot box.

 

[unixguy]

GeneC: are you sying IRV is unconsititutional?

GeneC:

Nope, this Country has elected to use the Constitution, thank you.

GeneC, forgive my ignorance but that snippet that you posted doesn't (to me) suggest that IRV is unconstitutional. (Of course I'm presuming that the EC would also stay in place-- that IRV would replace ONLY the current method used in Nov.)

The only thing I can find that would suggest that IRV doesn't meet current constitutional requirements is Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 - which states that the House will elect the pres and vice pres if none of the candidates have a majority. This is talking about the EC, though. I don't find anything in the constitution that would rule out IRV for each state to use to elect their EC delegates.

[edited to add the following (after reading Clean's message)]

I think I was confusing IRV with Condorcet. IRV (iirc) can create unexpected situations where a candidate who is more desirable to the greatest number of people would end up losing to a candidate who was desirable to a greater number of people.

 

[unixguy]

Hmm, nice side effect?

In theory it's not really a bad idea, but in practicality it would not work. If "none of the above" was to win then we'd have to go through ANOTHER selection process for the parties to pick a candidate and have a WHOLE other campaign. These things can't be done overnight. The presidential races start gearing up over a year in advance with expoloatory committees and people raising money to see if they can possibly run. So nice try....but it wouldn't work IMHO.

Maybe candidates wouldn't be so willing to start a year in advance.

 

[DRZinn]

Minus the (I think at least a little tongue-in-cheek) None of the Above choice, that's what I've been advocating for years now. Why? Because while being equally fair, it would instantly give third-party candidates a chance. Right now (let's face it) there is NONE.

 

[GeneC]

DocZinn, but there IS, but some people want to take the easy way out. The way to get ANY Party to a point to have a President elected, is to have them voted into lower offices, and then into Congress and then get on the Presidentail ballot, but in order to do that(as you probably know), would mean that most of America backed that Party and wanted it to rule this Country. So, if you want YOUR Party to be in power, get out there and prove to America that it's the right Party that has the REAL solutions. Otherwise one can sit on here and complain ad nauseum.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Come on GeneC, you promised you were going to ignore me, and now you show up (again) in a thread I started...

 

[Glock Glockler]

Gene, what's wrong with having a second choice?

If no one wants what the 3rd parties are selling they'll vote for the big 2, so what?

 

[GeneC]

GG, 'cause the FF already thought this thru. They didn't want every Tom,Dick and Harry , fly by night Party slinking in( really , for them, it'd be the British Empire, the most powerful Country on Earth, who they just KICKED ass on, from coming in and beating us at our own game) . They won this Country with blood, sweat, tears and lives and I personally believe that they figured if it was good enough for them, it'd be good enough for everyone else, so to get your party to Natl prominance, you have to pay your dues and win the Country over , one township/county/district/State at a time. I don't think some people really grasp the situation. In order to even get a State nomination , you have have 2/3 of that State backing you. Do you know how many people are in a State? That knows you and loves you and believes with all their hearts you're the one? Do you realize what it takes to make that happen? And you want to just simply write in Joe Schmuck, just for gp?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Now that really cleared things up, didn't it.

I feel like all intelligent thought has just been sucked into a giant void from which there is no escape.

 

[targetshootr]

I'd like to see them count the votes for each person on each ticket. If the VP gets more votes than the top of the ticket, the ticket is reversed and sworn in. That way someone like Edwards, the better of the four, would be pres and Kerry would have to spend his days trolling the bowels of Washington like Dick Cheney.

In leui of that, I treat every election as an up or down vote on the incumbent and that way avoid having to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Diggler]

I'm changing my name...

to "None of the Above."

 

[Glock Glockler]

Gene,

There is nothing about IRV that conflicts with the Constitution, sure the FF didnt think of it but they also didnt think of abolishing slavery. Right now candidates don't need 2/3 of the population backing them in order to win, even Clinton won with less than 50%. Using the >50% system that win would not have been possible and the weaker 3rd party candidates would be eliminated and the main candidates would be the winners.

All IRV does is allow a greater exposure of ideas into the political arena but the choice of the voters determines their success.

 

[unixguy]

IRV vs. Condorcet

Here's a link (possibly biased) explaining the drawbacks of IRV, and the strengths of condorcet voting. I haven't verified the examples, and even if I had wouldn't expect anybody to take my word that they're valid.

http://condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml