Sean (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jackslack) wrote,@ 2008-12-21 08:55:00 |
|
On Political Voting
James Joyner is quickly becoming my favorite conservative pundit. He's level headed, doesn't retreat to idiocy, and puts forward limited, sensible critiques of liberal discussion.
Here's a cracker of a shot from him though, on the current Minnesota mess.
Exactly.
Unsurprisingly, this is what we have in Australia, so perhaps I'm biased.
EDIT!: In cases where a third party candidate gets a significant number of votes and no candidate gets a majority, instant run-off voting would be a solution. As would an actual run-off election. Or, perhaps, you could require a run-off (whether instant or actual) only in cases where the margin between the first two candidates is less than one percent (or two percent, or whatever), keeping it first past the post but considering elections within the margin to be ties.
Does that sound a bit like -- yes, I think it does -- preferential voting? Goodness me!
I'm not proud of my country. But one thing we have gotten RIGHT is our voting system. It's compulsory and has built in checks to stop this sort of thing; and it nearly always does.
America can and SHOULD adopt the same system. Compulsory voting, with preferences all the way down the line.
And pass the National Popular Vote measure while you're at it. Electoral colleges are silly.
James Joyner is quickly becoming my favorite conservative pundit. He's level headed, doesn't retreat to idiocy, and puts forward limited, sensible critiques of liberal discussion.
Here's a cracker of a shot from him though, on the current Minnesota mess.
Electronic voting is slow, confusing, and subject to theoretical mass manipulation. Mark-sense ballots are much more intuitive and have a built-in paper trail. The solution is simple, if draconian: No tolerance. Ballots that are incorrectly filled out are thrown out. Zero interpretation. If you vote in the wrong place, write in “Lizard People,” or otherwise don’t follow the ridiculously simple instructions, your ballot is excluded from the process. Period.
Exactly.
Unsurprisingly, this is what we have in Australia, so perhaps I'm biased.
EDIT!: In cases where a third party candidate gets a significant number of votes and no candidate gets a majority, instant run-off voting would be a solution. As would an actual run-off election. Or, perhaps, you could require a run-off (whether instant or actual) only in cases where the margin between the first two candidates is less than one percent (or two percent, or whatever), keeping it first past the post but considering elections within the margin to be ties.
Does that sound a bit like -- yes, I think it does -- preferential voting? Goodness me!
I'm not proud of my country. But one thing we have gotten RIGHT is our voting system. It's compulsory and has built in checks to stop this sort of thing; and it nearly always does.
America can and SHOULD adopt the same system. Compulsory voting, with preferences all the way down the line.
And pass the National Popular Vote measure while you're at it. Electoral colleges are silly.
