I understand that people have problems with the two party system, but trying to seem above it all by claiming that both parties aren't very different is just ignorant. Pick any major issue, be it the USAPATRIOT act, gay marriage, gun control, American interventionism, you name it, and Obama and Romney (or Hillary and McCaine) will likely fall on different sides.
bigtuna on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
No voting system is perfect, but having a better one that would let you vote for your ideal candidate without "throwing away" your vote if they're unpopular (ie, a system where you rank candidates and your vote falls through the list until you hit a viable candidate) would go a long way to fixing the problems mentioned in this thread. It would also allow for the growth of a viable third party if the electorate wanted one by eliminating the pressure to vote exclusively for the dems or pubs.
Smasher on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I understand that people have problems with the two party system, but trying to seem above it all by claiming that both parties aren't very different is just ignorant. Pick any major issue, be it the USAPATRIOT act, gay marriage, gun control, American interventionism, you name it, and Obama and Romney (or Hillary and McCaine) will likely fall on different sides.
I understand that people have problems with the two party system, but trying to seem above it all by claiming that both parties aren't very different is just ignorant. Pick any major issue, be it the USAPATRIOT act, gay marriage, gun control, American interventionism, you name it, and Obama and Romney (or Hillary and McCaine) will likely fall on different sides.
As this shows compared to the global standard of 'left' and 'right' American politicians are very much closer on the scale than you'd think.
So is the American voting public.
In a multi-party system, the party tends to overshadow the candidate. The best possible system would have no parties at all, but failing that I'd much rather have two parties.
EDIT2: Ah, I see. By comparison with Europe.
EDIT: there doesn't seem to be any indication on that chart as to how they decided to define their continuum. Clearly it's not by genuinely "global" standards, so what is their basis of comparison? Whole thing reeks of a group with a major agenda (i.e., America is too conservative).
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I understand that people have problems with the two party system, but trying to seem above it all by claiming that both parties aren't very different is just ignorant. Pick any major issue, be it the USAPATRIOT act, gay marriage, gun control, American interventionism, you name it, and Obama and Romney (or Hillary and McCaine) will likely fall on different sides.
As this shows compared to the global standard of 'left' and 'right' American politicians are very much closer on the scale than you'd think.
So is the American voting public.
In a multi-party system, the party tends to overshadow the candidate. The best possible system would have no parties at all, but failing that I'd much rather have two parties.
when you only hear two talking points, you are very likely to choose one or the other. if we had ten different people with ten different talking points, I'm sure our voting public would span a larger range.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited January 2008
So if the "political compass" can provide no real examples of actual political leaders that fall into their definition of "Left Wing" (excepting Robert Mugabe for some reason), and basically every real-world political leader falls into the upper-right quadrant then what good is it as a metric really?
Irond Will on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
So if the "political compass" can provide no real examples of actual political leaders that fall into their definition of "Left Wing" (excepting Robert Mugabe for some reason), and basically every real-world political leader falls into the upper-right quadrant then what good is it as a metric really?
It shows for all their protestations of difference politicians are for the most part the same power hungry shape shifters they seem to be.
So if the "political compass" can provide no real examples of actual political leaders that fall into their definition of "Left Wing" (excepting Robert Mugabe for some reason), and basically every real-world political leader falls into the upper-right quadrant then what good is it as a metric really?
Fucking Sweden, for example, currently has the moderate conservatives ruling via coalition, and they're the most right-wing party we have.
This quote sums up my first reply in this thread:
While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.
And now for something completely different: what's the voter turnout like in the US?
I have a huge problem with the US being a two-party nation. And from my European perspective the parties only differ in what end of the boiled egg they start eating.
Only having two parties with a realistic chance at getting enough votes to matter (at least on the national level) leads to stagnation.
Yeah, good thing you're in fucking Sweden. Read through the primaries thread or read up on the candidates. They're extremely different.
People said the same fucking thing about Bush and Gore. Fucking idiots.
Edit: What Echo said, not you Satan.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
Quick question. If you vote for someone that you know has no chance to win, but is really the only person worthy of your vote, did you waste your vote?
Depends on if you're voting to show your support of said candidate or in an honest attempt to get him elected
If you're trying to get him elected, then yes, it's a waste but it was nice of you to try.
If you're voting as a show of support, then yes, it's a waste but it's nice of you to care.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
Vote for the candidate that shares your views. Even if your the only one who does. When i was studying world politics the instructor mentioned something interesting. He was from Europe, and mentioned when elections were held that if people were pissed at what their party was up to they would vote for the psycho fringe parties. The ones who would routinely get the same .1% of the vote. So when it came time to proportion the seats by the amount of votes and the random crazy party went from one seat to 5 seats it was seen as a wake up call.
If you vote for the candidate you want to win, and he loses. People look at the votes he got and ask themselves how they could get those votes.
Personally im waiting for a candidate that will penalize criminals for using guns in crimes as opposed to banning guns, is pro choice because they dont believe the government should be legislating it, is fine with gay marriage because its a religious issue and not one the government should be deciding, and will work to curb illegal immigration. Oh yes, and will control government spending, and stop with the welfare state BS.
If you are only voting for who will be #1, whats the point of voting? Research and understand all of the candidates and vote whom you feel is best. Not who you think will be #1, thats pretty retarded.
Onslaught_Fei on
XBL: Onslaught Fei
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
I'm sorry I even tried to make sense of the "Interpretations of the theorem" section and it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because some theoretical math proves that if every single voter was informed enough in the field of statistics and study in order to game what is otherwise a common sense dictum (rank the candidates in order of preference) doesn't mean this is actually going to come to pass. I imagine lots of people (like me, who similarly would not be able to make any sense of that page that was linked) would actually just rank their candidates in order of preference.
But hey, some number massaging shows us that voting is always flawed, obviously there's no improving upon the two-party system.
You also get to vote for a first, second, and third (etc. (I don't know how many exactly)) choice candidate, and if your first choice doesn't win, your second vote is tallied, unless your second choice doesn't win (or achieve some percentage or some shit, what do I look like, an Oz election official?), then it goes to the third candidate, onward and so forth.
I personally don't understand why they don't do it like MVP voting in basketball or some shit, where a first place vote is 5 points, a second place vote is 2 points, and a third place vote is 1 point (or however else you want to figure out the math and divvy it up) and then the candidate with the most points wins.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
What's the Australian system?
You have to vote.
Do they put you in jail if you don't?
You're fined. Although I also believe (?) Australia has a "no confidence" option.
With certain definitions, it is mathematically provable that there is no perfect voting system when more than two options are available. The US voting system is terrible, but even using much better systems, there is still utility in "gaming" your vote by voting against your true preferences. Because of this, I have no guilt voting for candidates that I feel have a chance of winning even when other candidates are closer to my views.
Sorry, Kucinich.
God, so bookmarking that. Thank you. Every goddamn time that stupid-ass Australian system comes up, everyone is always saying "oh, that reflects preferences much better," and I'm always saying "no, in fact, there are many conditions under which you create a better outcome for yourself by voting the opposite of your preferences," and no one ever believes me.
I'm sorry I even tried to make sense of the "Interpretations of the theorem" section and it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because some theoretical math proves that if every single voter was informed enough in the field of statistics and study in order to game what is otherwise a common sense dictum (rank the candidates in order of preference) doesn't mean this is actually going to come to pass. I imagine lots of people (like me, who similarly would not be able to make any sense of that page that was linked) would actually just rank their candidates in order of preference.
But hey, some number massaging shows us that voting is always flawed, obviously there's no improving upon the two-party system.
\
Basically, you think the proof in question only works if you understand it? Is there some way in which this is less than entirely retarded?
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Zak, the proof definately works, but what celery is saying is that only a fraction of voters would be savvy enough to exploit it. The rest will simply vote for who they want and hope for the best.
Personally, I can't figure a better way to do the Senate and President- single-winner votes are a tad difficult on this scale (perhaps you could go single-transferable-vote like they use to pick Olympics sites?), but in the House, I can game this to make it a multiple-winner election, and there I've got something to work with- though it will cause a bit of bewilderment at the booth:
1. First things first, we get rid of all the districts. Everything's at-large. That gets rid of any gerrymandering issues.
2. For the primary, all parties submit a list of every single candidate they wish to run in that state. If they have only 2 candidates in the state, fine. If their list resembles the California recall election, that's fine too. (There would be an independent list as well, if you want to run as that.)
3. You will select a party list to decide on when you go vote. You're given one point per listed candidate (with a maximum of 20; past that people start needing calculators), to assign however you wish.
4. The points are added up, and point totals determine seating priority for the general election. (Needless to say, anyone finishing in a position where they wouldn't get seated even if their party swept- say, 10th in a 5-seat state- is eliminated. And you don't get on anyone else's list. You're gone, LIEBERMAN.)
5. In the general, you're given 10 points, and a list of every party's list as decided on in the primary. Again, assign however you wish, but this time you're picking between parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. If it came out Dem 50-GOP 40-Green 10, the top five Democrats from the primary would be seated, as well as the top four Republicans and the Green winner.
There would be strategic voting in the general if your favorite got buried in the middle of his party list, but you had your chance to help him in the primary.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
You're probably okay voting for Ron Paul if you honestly and in a fully-informed fashion don't really care between the viable candidates. Though I stress "honestly and in a fully-informed fashion".
Well, seeing as how I wont vote for any liberal candidates, and I dont really like Mormons with hair-helmets, I will be voting for Dr. Paul in November.
-"Honestly"
Ruzan on
If you say "plz" because it is shorter than "please" then I'll say "no" because it is shorter than "yes".
Apparently there are people who don't have IDs for some reason and most states require a birth cert to get an ID, but if you don't have your birth cert you can't get your ID. Also to get a copy of your birth cert you need an ID.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
In my view, the power will almost always stay with the two major parties due to politcal influence, their supporters and the conclusion they have made many people draw that their vote is worthless unless used for one of the two major parties.
In the primaries, voting for a lesser known or popular candidate may not do much, but there's a chance it can influence votes in later primaries or as a long term example, will show people that an others will go against the grain so to say. Issue is, while it may help in the long term, you have to virtually wait in increments of 4 year blocks to see how it is influencing the voting majority in the long run.
For president, by helping a third party achieve a certani % of the popular vote I think (I may be wrong here), they are eligable for more funding or some such that the other parties are allowed, increasing the chance for their next candidate(s) to be heard.
In my cynical opinion, it is not the parties that need changing nor the monetary supporters of them who ultimately help control what they do in office, like the unions or religions for example, it's both the voters and the system. As long as the system promotes not keeping promises and playing poiltcal games to keep yourself in office, to support your party and to influence the votes as much as possible by whatever means, we aren't likely to see any changes unless the voters decide to do something about it.
Whether we as the voters see this whole process as entertainment, the only game to play as you get older or as a part of life that one cannot control with their vote alone so they don't vote or just hop on any old bandwagon of voting that your friends, co-workers or neighbors support, then we will stay where we are for a long, long time.
I'd agree with Fencingsax that the only way to waste your vote is to not use it at all. I'd be curious if everyone of voting age voted this year, how many more votes we'd see. I got the impression from years ago that somewhere between 50-60% of those who can vote, actually do. If that's true, there's an awful lot of votes out there that can make a big impact in any given election.
Apparently there are people who don't have IDs for some reason and most states require a birth cert to get an ID, but if you don't have your birth cert you can't get your ID. Also to get a copy of your birth cert you need an ID.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
Its pretty fucking ridiculous if you can't get some sort of ID, even a pedestrian one at your local DMV. What is a right can be exploited into massive voting fraud.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
There is 0 excuse to not have a photo id in this country. They are free from the BMV. "Need a 'burf' certificate? that is not hard either. Stop making excuses for lazy slobs.
Ruzan on
If you say "plz" because it is shorter than "please" then I'll say "no" because it is shorter than "yes".
Zak, the proof definately works, but what celery is saying is that only a fraction of voters would be savvy enough to exploit it. The rest will simply vote for who they want and hope for the best.
Personally, I can't figure a better way to do the Senate and President- single-winner votes are a tad difficult on this scale (perhaps you could go single-transferable-vote like they use to pick Olympics sites?), but in the House, I can game this to make it a multiple-winner election, and there I've got something to work with- though it will cause a bit of bewilderment at the booth:
1. First things first, we get rid of all the districts. Everything's at-large. That gets rid of any gerrymandering issues.
2. For the primary, all parties submit a list of every single candidate they wish to run in that state. If they have only 2 candidates in the state, fine. If their list resembles the California recall election, that's fine too. (There would be an independent list as well, if you want to run as that.)
3. You will select a party list to decide on when you go vote. You're given one point per listed candidate (with a maximum of 20; past that people start needing calculators), to assign however you wish.
4. The points are added up, and point totals determine seating priority for the general election. (Needless to say, anyone finishing in a position where they wouldn't get seated even if their party swept- say, 10th in a 5-seat state- is eliminated. And you don't get on anyone else's list. You're gone, LIEBERMAN.)
5. In the general, you're given 10 points, and a list of every party's list as decided on in the primary. Again, assign however you wish, but this time you're picking between parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. If it came out Dem 50-GOP 40-Green 10, the top five Democrats from the primary would be seated, as well as the top four Republicans and the Green winner.
There would be strategic voting in the general if your favorite got buried in the middle of his party list, but you had your chance to help him in the primary.
The proof does not depend on voters knowing the proof.
Apparently there are people who don't have IDs for some reason and most states require a birth cert to get an ID, but if you don't have your birth cert you can't get your ID. Also to get a copy of your birth cert you need an ID.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
Its pretty fucking ridiculous if you can't get some sort of ID, even a pedestrian one at your local DMV. What is a right can be exploited into massive voting fraud.
People are against it because there is no reasonable evidence of voter fraud. It is designed to suppress minority votes. Yes, obviously it's possible to get an ID. It's also possible to memorize the Constitution backwards. Forcing people to do these things in the absence of any indication that they are necessary to the security of the voting process is voting suppression.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
There is 0 excuse to not have a photo id in this country. They are free from the BMV. "Need a 'burf' certificate? that is not hard either. Stop making excuses for lazy slobs.
By this country, you obviously aren't speaking of the US, which is where we were talking about. In this country getting a copy of my birth certificate would run me like $25 (and take up to 6 weeks), largely because it's coming from halfway across the country in some bumfuck town. As for the ID, even replacements cost something like $20.
Yeah, $20-$45 may not sound like a lot. But to somebody who has $0 in the bank, and who already doesn't think their vote will matter much, that more than enough of a barrier to entry.
Vote for the candidate that shares your views. Even if your the only one who does. When i was studying world politics the instructor mentioned something interesting. He was from Europe, and mentioned when elections were held that if people were pissed at what their party was up to they would vote for the psycho fringe parties. The ones who would routinely get the same .1% of the vote. So when it came time to proportion the seats by the amount of votes and the random crazy party went from one seat to 5 seats it was seen as a wake up call.
See, that makes sense though because even a small number of votes will get them seats. In the US, a small number of fringe voters gets you jack squat, except maybe laughed at or thanked by the guy who actually wins.
Zak, the proof definately works, but what celery is saying is that only a fraction of voters would be savvy enough to exploit it. The rest will simply vote for who they want and hope for the best.
Personally, I can't figure a better way to do the Senate and President- single-winner votes are a tad difficult on this scale (perhaps you could go single-transferable-vote like they use to pick Olympics sites?), but in the House, I can game this to make it a multiple-winner election, and there I've got something to work with- though it will cause a bit of bewilderment at the booth:
1. First things first, we get rid of all the districts. Everything's at-large. That gets rid of any gerrymandering issues.
2. For the primary, all parties submit a list of every single candidate they wish to run in that state. If they have only 2 candidates in the state, fine. If their list resembles the California recall election, that's fine too. (There would be an independent list as well, if you want to run as that.)
3. You will select a party list to decide on when you go vote. You're given one point per listed candidate (with a maximum of 20; past that people start needing calculators), to assign however you wish.
4. The points are added up, and point totals determine seating priority for the general election. (Needless to say, anyone finishing in a position where they wouldn't get seated even if their party swept- say, 10th in a 5-seat state- is eliminated. And you don't get on anyone else's list. You're gone, LIEBERMAN.)
5. In the general, you're given 10 points, and a list of every party's list as decided on in the primary. Again, assign however you wish, but this time you're picking between parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. If it came out Dem 50-GOP 40-Green 10, the top five Democrats from the primary would be seated, as well as the top four Republicans and the Green winner.
There would be strategic voting in the general if your favorite got buried in the middle of his party list, but you had your chance to help him in the primary.
The proof does not depend on voters knowing the proof.
No it doesn't, but to measurably effect the vote the voters must both know it and understand it's ramifications.
Proving the Riemann hypothesis does not automatically make all cryptography systems insecure.
Posts
This is why I always vote for myself as a write-in.
Actually,
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
As this shows compared to the global standard of 'left' and 'right' American politicians are very much closer on the scale than you'd think.
George Carlin would disagree with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
So is the American voting public.
In a multi-party system, the party tends to overshadow the candidate. The best possible system would have no parties at all, but failing that I'd much rather have two parties.
EDIT2: Ah, I see. By comparison with Europe.
EDIT: there doesn't seem to be any indication on that chart as to how they decided to define their continuum. Clearly it's not by genuinely "global" standards, so what is their basis of comparison? Whole thing reeks of a group with a major agenda (i.e., America is too conservative).
when you only hear two talking points, you are very likely to choose one or the other. if we had ten different people with ten different talking points, I'm sure our voting public would span a larger range.
It shows for all their protestations of difference politicians are for the most part the same power hungry shape shifters they seem to be.
Also you didn't check all of the compasses.
I didn't know this was an interview...
Here's the EU chart.
Fucking Sweden, for example, currently has the moderate conservatives ruling via coalition, and they're the most right-wing party we have.
This quote sums up my first reply in this thread:
And now for something completely different: what's the voter turnout like in the US?
People said the same fucking thing about Bush and Gore. Fucking idiots.
Edit: What Echo said, not you Satan.
Depends on if you're voting to show your support of said candidate or in an honest attempt to get him elected
If you're trying to get him elected, then yes, it's a waste but it was nice of you to try.
If you're voting as a show of support, then yes, it's a waste but it's nice of you to care.
Sorry, Kucinich.
If you vote for the candidate you want to win, and he loses. People look at the votes he got and ask themselves how they could get those votes.
Personally im waiting for a candidate that will penalize criminals for using guns in crimes as opposed to banning guns, is pro choice because they dont believe the government should be legislating it, is fine with gay marriage because its a religious issue and not one the government should be deciding, and will work to curb illegal immigration. Oh yes, and will control government spending, and stop with the welfare state BS.
Unfortunately no such candidate exists.
What's the Australian system?
You have to vote.
But hey, some number massaging shows us that voting is always flawed, obviously there's no improving upon the two-party system.
I personally don't understand why they don't do it like MVP voting in basketball or some shit, where a first place vote is 5 points, a second place vote is 2 points, and a third place vote is 1 point (or however else you want to figure out the math and divvy it up) and then the candidate with the most points wins.
Do they put you in jail if you don't?
You're fined. Although I also believe (?) Australia has a "no confidence" option.
I'll spray-paint while voting for Obama.
Or I just won't because I've never bought a can of spray-paint before and there aren't really any large obnoxious morally-repugnant ads near me.
Basically, you think the proof in question only works if you understand it? Is there some way in which this is less than entirely retarded?
Personally, I can't figure a better way to do the Senate and President- single-winner votes are a tad difficult on this scale (perhaps you could go single-transferable-vote like they use to pick Olympics sites?), but in the House, I can game this to make it a multiple-winner election, and there I've got something to work with- though it will cause a bit of bewilderment at the booth:
1. First things first, we get rid of all the districts. Everything's at-large. That gets rid of any gerrymandering issues.
2. For the primary, all parties submit a list of every single candidate they wish to run in that state. If they have only 2 candidates in the state, fine. If their list resembles the California recall election, that's fine too. (There would be an independent list as well, if you want to run as that.)
3. You will select a party list to decide on when you go vote. You're given one point per listed candidate (with a maximum of 20; past that people start needing calculators), to assign however you wish.
4. The points are added up, and point totals determine seating priority for the general election. (Needless to say, anyone finishing in a position where they wouldn't get seated even if their party swept- say, 10th in a 5-seat state- is eliminated. And you don't get on anyone else's list. You're gone, LIEBERMAN.)
5. In the general, you're given 10 points, and a list of every party's list as decided on in the primary. Again, assign however you wish, but this time you're picking between parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. If it came out Dem 50-GOP 40-Green 10, the top five Democrats from the primary would be seated, as well as the top four Republicans and the Green winner.
There would be strategic voting in the general if your favorite got buried in the middle of his party list, but you had your chance to help him in the primary.
Well, seeing as how I wont vote for any liberal candidates, and I dont really like Mormons with hair-helmets, I will be voting for Dr. Paul in November.
-"Honestly"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id_6
Apparently there are people who don't have IDs for some reason and most states require a birth cert to get an ID, but if you don't have your birth cert you can't get your ID. Also to get a copy of your birth cert you need an ID.
So you get caught in a loop where you can't vote, so you are denied a right.
In the primaries, voting for a lesser known or popular candidate may not do much, but there's a chance it can influence votes in later primaries or as a long term example, will show people that an others will go against the grain so to say. Issue is, while it may help in the long term, you have to virtually wait in increments of 4 year blocks to see how it is influencing the voting majority in the long run.
For president, by helping a third party achieve a certani % of the popular vote I think (I may be wrong here), they are eligable for more funding or some such that the other parties are allowed, increasing the chance for their next candidate(s) to be heard.
In my cynical opinion, it is not the parties that need changing nor the monetary supporters of them who ultimately help control what they do in office, like the unions or religions for example, it's both the voters and the system. As long as the system promotes not keeping promises and playing poiltcal games to keep yourself in office, to support your party and to influence the votes as much as possible by whatever means, we aren't likely to see any changes unless the voters decide to do something about it.
Whether we as the voters see this whole process as entertainment, the only game to play as you get older or as a part of life that one cannot control with their vote alone so they don't vote or just hop on any old bandwagon of voting that your friends, co-workers or neighbors support, then we will stay where we are for a long, long time.
I'd agree with Fencingsax that the only way to waste your vote is to not use it at all. I'd be curious if everyone of voting age voted this year, how many more votes we'd see. I got the impression from years ago that somewhere between 50-60% of those who can vote, actually do. If that's true, there's an awful lot of votes out there that can make a big impact in any given election.
Its pretty fucking ridiculous if you can't get some sort of ID, even a pedestrian one at your local DMV. What is a right can be exploited into massive voting fraud.
There is 0 excuse to not have a photo id in this country. They are free from the BMV. "Need a 'burf' certificate? that is not hard either. Stop making excuses for lazy slobs.
The proof does not depend on voters knowing the proof.
People are against it because there is no reasonable evidence of voter fraud. It is designed to suppress minority votes. Yes, obviously it's possible to get an ID. It's also possible to memorize the Constitution backwards. Forcing people to do these things in the absence of any indication that they are necessary to the security of the voting process is voting suppression.
By this country, you obviously aren't speaking of the US, which is where we were talking about. In this country getting a copy of my birth certificate would run me like $25 (and take up to 6 weeks), largely because it's coming from halfway across the country in some bumfuck town. As for the ID, even replacements cost something like $20.
Yeah, $20-$45 may not sound like a lot. But to somebody who has $0 in the bank, and who already doesn't think their vote will matter much, that more than enough of a barrier to entry.
See, that makes sense though because even a small number of votes will get them seats. In the US, a small number of fringe voters gets you jack squat, except maybe laughed at or thanked by the guy who actually wins.
Proving the Riemann hypothesis does not automatically make all cryptography systems insecure.