Posted on 03/24/2008 7:39:18 AM PDT by neverdem
When Ralph Nader recently announced he was entering the 2008 presidential race, many Democrats groaned. It was his fault, they say, that George Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000. But Nader retorted that the Democratic Party has only itself to blame for the loss in 2000.
Mathematicians offer a different perspective. The problem, they say, doesn't lie with Nader or with the Democrats. It lies with our voting system.
Complaints about the obscure Electoral College system are common, but the mathematicians' objection is even more basic. Presidential elections in the United States are decided using a variation of a method known as plurality voting: each person votes for one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
Seems like the obvious approach—but obvious doesn't always mean effective. "The plurality vote is pretty much the worst voting system there is," says Donald Saari, a mathematician at the University of California, Irvine.
The 2000 election gave a vivid demonstration of plurality voting's limitations. Polls indicated that most people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush. The votes for Nader and Gore combined in Florida would have beat Bush. But with the votes divided between them, Bush emerged the winner.
Though this example is especially dramatic, Saari has found that determining voters' preferences from their ballots is often tricky. For example, suppose three candidates, A, B, and C, are competing. The preferences of the voters are as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
I believe it is Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico
I don’t have any problems with “spoilers” on either side. Its called freedom, don’t ya know?
Of course, we'd not hear any criticism of the Electoral College had that happened. We'd be hearing the Democrats swooning over their wisdom that the Founding Fathers had in creating such a "perfect system."
Thank you Imperial Federal Government Schools.
Though this example is especially dramatic, Saari has found that determining voters' preferences from their ballots is often tricky. For example, suppose three candidates, A, B, and C, are competing. The preferences of the voters are as follows:Gotta disagree with this. We vote one candidate up and all others down. We don't rank them through our voting. Although that might be an interesting concept :)
- 3 people rank A first, B second, and C third;
- 2 people rank A first, C second, and B third;
- 2 people rank B first, C second, and A third; and
- 4 people rank C first, B second, and A third.
Plurality voting would name A the winner, with 5 votes.
On the other hand, suppose one wanted the candidate that was least disliked. Six people rank A last, two people rank B last, and three people rank C last, so in that case, B should win.
Yet another method would be to assign 2 points for a first place vote, 1 point for second place and none for third. In this method, known as the Borda count, C walks away the winner with 12 points, beating out B's 11 points and A's 10.
So who should win the election?
If they get rid of the electoral college, I think they should get rid of Senators as well.
Why should Rhode Island have as much say as North Carolina.
Why should Teddy kennedy have as much say as a Senator from TX or CA?
In fact, I once did just that to get the outcome I wanted for an amateur fiction magazine I produced about 15 years ago. We had a circulation of about 30 or so.
I asked for a poll of the top 3 stories of the year, without stating how I was going to weigh the votes (because when I printed it, I really didn't know -- in fact, the poll was designed to kill an otherwise blank page).
Anyway, I couldn't decide whether to give a 3-2-1 score or a point for being listed or what. In the end, I gave it a 5-4-3 rating, for no other reason than to make sure that the one story mentioned on all the ballots actually won. No complaints. No calls for a recount.
Okay, enough of memory lane. Back to the thread ...
Then the problem isn't with the system, its with the stupid people that vote for candidates that cannot possibly win as a protest of some sort, and are then shocked to find out that the greater evil (in their view) has won.
Innumeracy, that's the problem.
Here in Illinois we used Cumulative Voting until about 1980.
An unusual system that put Clinton X-pal Lani Guinier in the tank.
Bush carried New Hampshire in 2000 by 7,000 votes (Nader had 22,000). Without NH’s electoral votes in 2000, Bush would have lost the election. In 2004 Kerry carried NH by 9,000 votes.
Basically, Delaware and Rhode Island would both be represented by one Senator between them, who is neither a citizen of either state, or Arkansas. This would not be an elected position. I have volunteered to personally select that Senator, based on athletic ability and appropriate tailoring.
The term of office for this appointed Senator would be 18 months and he (or she) would be eligible for re-appointment if I felt like it. My short list features Jay Leno, although I don't think much of his athleticism.
Is this like the “3rd world dictator voting system”?
I’m sure we can completely trust judgment calls made by those counting the ballots.
Any method is likelyl to leave someone dissatisfied if they think they would have won by another method. Let’s keep the one we’ve got. It served America, and the world, well in 2004.
I really like it. Why shoul da half assed state like Delaware have the sam say as North Carolina.
I would make one addition to your suggestion. The only way they could be re-appointed after 18 months is by defeating their opponent in two of the following:
1) Modern Pentathalon
2) Tango competition
3) Cliff diving from Alcapulco on an upcoming edition of Wide World of Sports.
I actually tend to agree with him. Clintoon and Jesse Ventura were both elected because of pluralities, and not majorities.
Excellent suggestions! I had thought of Snowboarding with Automatic Weapons winner take all.
And this is also one reason I made citizens of these two lugubrious locales ineligible for the post. If one were to judge from Claiborne Pell or Joe Biden, these small state people apparently have a very hard time simultaneously walking and chewing gum, and could be seriously injured on their way to the deciding events.
This is a stupid and too complex system from my brief perusal.
The better solution would be for someone to vote, like in this system, for their preferred candidates in order.
If the number of first choice votes doesn’t yield 50% + 1 votes, then you count the first and second choices. If this doesn’t yield the majority, go further down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.