This is, in fact, how many Northern California cities elect mayors. In a multi candidate race, it delivers the best option with the fewest contests. It would be great if all states agree but our state determined system of primary voting make it very tough to implement. Perhaps the events of this election cycle will galvanize Congress to amend the Constitution to improve the whole process. As a resident of a late balloting state my Presidential primary vote is usually moot. If that's not being disenfranchised, what is? The system needs to better reflect the one man one vote principle our country was founded on.
17
I see three problems... Nobody would understand it, poll workers would not be able to explain it, and the voting machines couldn't handle it.
14
Quote: "In an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, Gopal Gandhi, Mahatma’s grandson, wrote that “69 percent of the voters did not see you as their savior,” adding that they also “disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh” (our country)."
The way to look at it is that all other leaders and political parties were more rejected by the voters than the winner of the election.
The voters did not disagree on the geographical delineation of their country, nor the Constitution, system of elections and government. "We disagree on what our country is or was" is certainly not something that can be settled by an election -- therefore the meaningful disagreement can only be "we disagree on what our country should aspire to be", or else "we agree on the aspiration but differ on the means". In the American context, the first translates into the difference between Democrats and Republicans; the second, e.g., translates to the difference between Clinton and Sanders. This kind of difference is normal. The important thing is that there is a decision procedure that has everyone's consent in order to proceed and not that some fairness criterion be satisfied in a mathematical way.
The way to look at it is that all other leaders and political parties were more rejected by the voters than the winner of the election.
The voters did not disagree on the geographical delineation of their country, nor the Constitution, system of elections and government. "We disagree on what our country is or was" is certainly not something that can be settled by an election -- therefore the meaningful disagreement can only be "we disagree on what our country should aspire to be", or else "we agree on the aspiration but differ on the means". In the American context, the first translates into the difference between Democrats and Republicans; the second, e.g., translates to the difference between Clinton and Sanders. This kind of difference is normal. The important thing is that there is a decision procedure that has everyone's consent in order to proceed and not that some fairness criterion be satisfied in a mathematical way.
5
Majorities are for democracies. The US is a republic, and as the Founding Fathers were terrified of the hoi polloi, designed as such...
24
The article asserts that Arrow's theorem "demonstrates that there is no perfect voting system." On the contrary, the Arrow theorem only applies to ranking systems. It demonstrates nothing about the others, including Approval.
4
Canada has a similar problem where a majority government can be formed with only 40% of the popular vote. We have more political parties running here so the vote can be divided even more by diversity of opinion and vision. There is a move to have proportional representation which tries to incorporate the number of seats won by a party with the popular vote. We need something better than we have now.
5
The quote from Gopal Gandhi is the kind of gratuitous swipe that we have come to expect that Krugman gives Senator Bernie Sanders in his columns. Anyway, a good reply to Gopal Gandhi is this by R Jagannathan, who is also editorial directory of Swarajya magazine.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-gopal-gandhis-open-letter-to-modi-...
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-gopal-gandhis-open-letter-to-modi-...
3
The irony of course is that the Republican party changed its primary calendar to address problems with previous elections.
The real way to get rid of the Trumps and other GOP candidates who are actually no better would be to run on policies the public actually agrees with and to keep their promises to the public once elected.
The real way to get rid of the Trumps and other GOP candidates who are actually no better would be to run on policies the public actually agrees with and to keep their promises to the public once elected.
2
The only way to guarantee the winning primary or general election candidate achieves a majority is to limit elections to two candidates. Whether this is accomplished by multiple voting rounds, or arbitrary selection rules, there is simply no way to do away with math. Our system, which on the Presidential level requires not a majority of the votes cast but a majority of electoral votes, never was a pure majority-rule system. Even when only 13 states along the Eastern Seaboard, it was instead designed so that a factional candidate with a devoted, but geographically-limited appeal does not prevail over one with majority appeal across a broader spectrum. That argument is even more compelling now that the country is continental in scope. Protecting the minority from a tyranny of a majority rarely makes the majority happy. But somehow, even in our flawed system, the winner of 270 electoral votes nearly always wins a majority of votes cast nation wide. That we have but two major parties with diverse constituencies is no coincidence. But woe to a party that continually allows one constituency to prosper at the expense of the others. Democrats may be looking around uncomfortably at their gatherings, but Republicans are in full-on internecine warfare. In the long run, I think balance matters more than purity.
3
The problem with American elections isn't the voting system, its a poorly informed and apathetic electorate. Tweaking the electoral mechanism in the hope of producing a "better outcome," whatever exactly that means, won't change that fact that too many voters get their "news" from Facebook.
11
The real problem is that the nomination and election of presidents is of much greater consequence than the founding father ever envisioned. Recall that the Constitution originally gave the vice presidency to the candidate who came in second in the balloting. The founders saw no problem with replacing a Hillary Clinton with a Donald Trump or visa versus if a president died in office. They expected presidential quirks, ideologies and viewpoints to little matter since the Constitution tasks the president to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress. They did not foresee that the growth of the federal bureaucracy and federal regulations that have the impact of law would enable presidents to “run the country.” Now that things have grown more complex, we should shift to the parliamentary system in which Congress can elect and remove presidents by a vote of confidence. This would provide a safeguard against extremism in the Oval Office while putting an end to Congressional gridlock.
5
Interesting, but if you were objective, you would have looked into how this may have effected previous US elections.
6
Leave the plurality--or first past the post--definition of election winners alone in the US. It works in most elections in that the winner is typically accepted. Proportional vote counting favors the establishment and discourages insurgents. See Trump being unelected in the examples.
In the mess this election has created lie some important lessons for the future. Minorities, the poor, women, and the religious gained a say that will not go away in future elctions.
In the mess this election has created lie some important lessons for the future. Minorities, the poor, women, and the religious gained a say that will not go away in future elctions.
3
The religious, as citizens, clearly ought to have the same say as any other person. Religions, on the other hand, have no place having a say in any constitutional democracy. The religious have had far too much say in the recent past, and are going crazy about losing their undeservedly large voice. Good riddance to that bias towards religion, I say!
12
Do these two academics actually understand that we are a republic? Also, if it were someone other than Donald Trump - a candidate whom the politically correct left hates - this article would never have been written.
How about some studies and thinking on how the deliberately malevolent attacks by the press (yes, including the NYT) sway voters' opinions? Is that truly democratic? Particularly when all the Hilary and Obama bad issues are pretty much whitewashed?
How about some studies and thinking on how the deliberately malevolent attacks by the press (yes, including the NYT) sway voters' opinions? Is that truly democratic? Particularly when all the Hilary and Obama bad issues are pretty much whitewashed?
15
Actually, liberals are generally fully in favor of AV voting (the system in this article is a bit more complicated). See, while you want to vote for Trump, we want to vote for Nader or Jill Stein or someone who more closely represents our views, but not waste a vote or risk someone we do not agree with at all getting into office (Trump, Cruz, etc.). You might not realize it, but Trump actually scares us a lot less than Cruz. Trump would be very bad. Cruz would be catastrophic.
AV voting is a good idea, regardless of your political viewpoint. It allows you to rank order your candidates. Trump might still be on top with that, but that's not a problem in a democracy or democratic republic. Well, it is A Problem (Trump is pretty clearly unqualified to be president), but it's not a voting system problem. Voting systems are not, and should not be, designed to keep out unqualified candidates. They should be designed to allow people's voices and preferences to be clearly announced. AV voting would do that.
As for Clinton and Obama's issues being whitewashed ... yeah I don't see that for a moment. Their policy proposals are pretty well scrutinized, and their personal flaws have been on blatant display. And shall we talk about how Trump's racism and Cruz's misogyny haven't been front and center this whole time? How Cruz's truly horrific theocratic impulses have been swept under the carpet? How none of Trump, Cruz, or Kasich has put forth an actual tax plan? Etc, etc.
AV voting is a good idea, regardless of your political viewpoint. It allows you to rank order your candidates. Trump might still be on top with that, but that's not a problem in a democracy or democratic republic. Well, it is A Problem (Trump is pretty clearly unqualified to be president), but it's not a voting system problem. Voting systems are not, and should not be, designed to keep out unqualified candidates. They should be designed to allow people's voices and preferences to be clearly announced. AV voting would do that.
As for Clinton and Obama's issues being whitewashed ... yeah I don't see that for a moment. Their policy proposals are pretty well scrutinized, and their personal flaws have been on blatant display. And shall we talk about how Trump's racism and Cruz's misogyny haven't been front and center this whole time? How Cruz's truly horrific theocratic impulses have been swept under the carpet? How none of Trump, Cruz, or Kasich has put forth an actual tax plan? Etc, etc.
35
Two other comments mentioned "approval voting." In addition to the benefits those comments described, I would add simplicity to the list. Personally, I find single transferable vote and other ranking systems to be fascinating, but in a democracy where not everyone spent time reading about Arrow's theorem in their youth, it is also important to have a system that people can explain and understand in a sentence or two. "The one with the highest approval wins" is roughly as straightforward as our current system and is unlikely to be perceived as some kind of procedural trick by elites.
7
Why not make it simpler and just go for the instant runoff (IRV), called in the UK and Australia the alternative vote (AV)? Under this system, the voter similarly rank orders candidates, and if no one achieves an outright majority of first place votes, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and the ballots for that candidate are transferred to their second choices, and if still no majority, the next lowest candidate is eliminated and the votes on those ballots similarly transferred,and so on. That way the winner is more likely to be one with the widest and deepest base of support. That is how the President if Ireland is chosen, the Australian House, and the mayor of San Francisco. Trump would have lost out long ago under this model.
Under IRV, candidates have no incentive to slam each other, since they may need each other's voters, and thus there will be less negative campaigning. Also voters have more reason to believe their votes will count so voter turnout will go up. If we adopted this model for general elections, people would not fear "wasting their vote" on third parties and independents. See fairvote.org for better descriptions and explanations of this far superior voting method for single member offices.
Under IRV, candidates have no incentive to slam each other, since they may need each other's voters, and thus there will be less negative campaigning. Also voters have more reason to believe their votes will count so voter turnout will go up. If we adopted this model for general elections, people would not fear "wasting their vote" on third parties and independents. See fairvote.org for better descriptions and explanations of this far superior voting method for single member offices.
17
IRV responds pathologically to small movements in the center of public opinion. See under the heading "Shattered" in http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
IRV proponents have not, to my knowledge, demonstrated that IRV accords the voters equal power over the outcome. Equality can be demonstrated for Approval Voting.
IRV proponents have not, to my knowledge, demonstrated that IRV accords the voters equal power over the outcome. Equality can be demonstrated for Approval Voting.
2
Common sense should have stopped Obama's election. Now,, not unlike John Osborn , we are all looking back, if not in anger, then certainly in disappointment Eventually we may come to a stoic acceptance of our stupidity. I sonde. i wonder am i quoting the steps to grief instead of Osborn? Perhaps they are the same thing.
2
The mention by the authors of Arrow;s Theorem invalidates most of the rest of the article as it applies Condorcet's method ex post facto with a specific goal in mind.
3
Typical Republican think:
How we Might have stopped Donald Trump.
Wah Wah Wah.
Republicans - not "doers" anymore, just "stoppers".
Must Stop Obama! Must Stop Hilary! Must Stop Trump! Must Stop Voting! Must Stop Women from Choosing! Must Stop Anti-Gun Laws! Must Stop Social Security! Must Stop Heath Care. Must Stop transgender people from peeing public outhouses. Must Stop feeding the poor! Must Stop gay marriage. Must stop! Must stop! Must Stop! Must Stop! Must Stop!
The Republican Mantra of today is "Americans can do with less. Americans can do with less! Americans can do with less."
And they are baffled - BAFFLED - at why the Democrats keep winning the White House.
Republicans and their "must stop" agenda is killing them.
And they deserve no better.
How we Might have stopped Donald Trump.
Wah Wah Wah.
Republicans - not "doers" anymore, just "stoppers".
Must Stop Obama! Must Stop Hilary! Must Stop Trump! Must Stop Voting! Must Stop Women from Choosing! Must Stop Anti-Gun Laws! Must Stop Social Security! Must Stop Heath Care. Must Stop transgender people from peeing public outhouses. Must Stop feeding the poor! Must Stop gay marriage. Must stop! Must stop! Must Stop! Must Stop! Must Stop!
The Republican Mantra of today is "Americans can do with less. Americans can do with less! Americans can do with less."
And they are baffled - BAFFLED - at why the Democrats keep winning the White House.
Republicans and their "must stop" agenda is killing them.
And they deserve no better.
73
Well, this is my favorite comment of the week. Brilliant. You left out "Must stop higher wages for working people."
17
Believe me,Trump's supporters would have seen this plan and those recommended in the comments, as a 'plot'' to disenfranchise them.
Complex voting schemes appeal to those with complex minds.
Good luck with that!
Complex voting schemes appeal to those with complex minds.
Good luck with that!
4
"Complex voting schemes appeal to those with complex minds." The opposite of complexity is simplicity. Removing one rule from the current voting system makes it simpler, not more complex. I propose removal of the rule against "overvote". This would accord each voter the same amount of power over the outcome as each other voter, a characteristic the current system doesn't offer, and a characteristic that would make political money much less effective. Also, there would be no Trump.
1
There are two major flaws in proposed system. First it tries to predict hypothetical one-on-one contest one of results of multi-way race Good luck! Just do the run off.
Secondly it may end up choosing candidates who is disliked less. We could just vote against candidate, not for. Doing something always create friends and enemies. So we may end up with the most feckless, not controversial candidate.
Just get over it, Donald Trump is winning it and last primaries is prove of it.
Secondly it may end up choosing candidates who is disliked less. We could just vote against candidate, not for. Doing something always create friends and enemies. So we may end up with the most feckless, not controversial candidate.
Just get over it, Donald Trump is winning it and last primaries is prove of it.
1
Trump will get more votes the the GOP primary's then any other candidate in GOP history. That fact alone shoots down this wishful thinking opinion.
2
I'm not sure I'm opposed to this system, but I can't help noting Abraham Lincoln would never have become president if we'd been using it in 1860.
4
The one problem that instant runoff voting fails to address is a real voter information system. Without a better way to gather information about candidates, their beliefs, voting history and platform, the likelihood of bad outcomes continues.
3
The true issue about information re: elections is that a majority of voters don't WANT information beyond posturing and platitudes.
A great majority of our voting population believes in Angels and UFOs, and couldn't locate any other country on a map of the world if put to the test.
Information, we don't want no stinkin' information.
With the nomination of Donald Trump (and many other past candidates for the Republication party) we reap as we have sown.
Might as well enjoy the circus.......crying is so tiring and useless.
A great majority of our voting population believes in Angels and UFOs, and couldn't locate any other country on a map of the world if put to the test.
Information, we don't want no stinkin' information.
With the nomination of Donald Trump (and many other past candidates for the Republication party) we reap as we have sown.
Might as well enjoy the circus.......crying is so tiring and useless.
10
Of course the elected people that determine what voting system will be employed in general will choose the one that benefits themselves. We see that now in Trump's insistence that a plurality of delegates and or primary votes should be sufficient for nomination, while Cruz champions the view that a majority of delegates is required.
This brings to mind the saying "Figures don't lie, but liars will figure."
This brings to mind the saying "Figures don't lie, but liars will figure."
6
The voting scheme used in Australia is essential this. You rats all candidates, with preferences. The candidate with the smallest number of "1" votes is eliminated and his/her votes are distributed amongst the remaining candidates based upon the "2" votes on the ballots. This cycle repeats until only two candidates remain - the one with the bigger pile wins.
This doesn't necessarily elect the best-liked candidates but it does guard against the problem we see with Trump. And Cruz.
This doesn't necessarily elect the best-liked candidates but it does guard against the problem we see with Trump. And Cruz.
2
This is actually the system we use for elections in Australia - the least dispreferred candidate is the ultimate winner. We are required by law to rank our candidates in order of preference, and the preferences of voters supporting lower-ranked candidates are then distributed. The system is in a way conservative, but it suits a culture which is deeply skeptical of politicans, such as Australia's.
2
How can you comply with your law if you feel equally toward two or more candidates?
Yes, Donald Trump won Arkansas with 32.8% and Ted Cruz won 30.5% of the vote, Marco Rubio won 24.9% of the vote, Ben Carson won 5.7% of the vote and John Kasich won 3.7% of the vote. As the primary battles droned on, Rubio and Carson dropped out.
Last week in Connecticut, Trump won 57.9% of the vote, John Kasich won 28.4% and Ted Cruz won 11.7% of the vote.
The traditional system seems to be working very well. The field of candidate has shrunk and regional differences are apparent in the results.
Last week in Connecticut, Trump won 57.9% of the vote, John Kasich won 28.4% and Ted Cruz won 11.7% of the vote.
The traditional system seems to be working very well. The field of candidate has shrunk and regional differences are apparent in the results.
2
America in 2050?
By then it should be apparent to all--laid out with rather clear enough simplicity--that America is not a democracy, not a representative republic, that even if an incomprehensible voting system could be made clear and demonstrate the will of the majority of people, the majority would not have much say because what America is is most accurately reflected through the institution of education: A system oligarchical/meritocratic in which a minority of people by education or inherited wealth, but increasingly by education, has the power and wealth in the country.
It simply matters less and less whether the right or the left promises to help the majority of people more than the other political party. In fact the average person today should easily be able to grasp the absurdity on one hand of being told that voting in America represents the will of the people while on the other hand seeing every day the best jobs, prospects and power go to quite a few people by education or powerful family connection. Honestly, what prospects really does a person of I.Q. 100 have if not born into wealth in America? If with such intelligence and presumably mediocre educational attainment you have little to look forward to other than a crummy job, rooting for a favorite sports team and other significators of mere standardization. Your task is not to see inside a television, the wonderful integration of parts, but to receive the cacophony, fragmentation, triviality of screen.
By then it should be apparent to all--laid out with rather clear enough simplicity--that America is not a democracy, not a representative republic, that even if an incomprehensible voting system could be made clear and demonstrate the will of the majority of people, the majority would not have much say because what America is is most accurately reflected through the institution of education: A system oligarchical/meritocratic in which a minority of people by education or inherited wealth, but increasingly by education, has the power and wealth in the country.
It simply matters less and less whether the right or the left promises to help the majority of people more than the other political party. In fact the average person today should easily be able to grasp the absurdity on one hand of being told that voting in America represents the will of the people while on the other hand seeing every day the best jobs, prospects and power go to quite a few people by education or powerful family connection. Honestly, what prospects really does a person of I.Q. 100 have if not born into wealth in America? If with such intelligence and presumably mediocre educational attainment you have little to look forward to other than a crummy job, rooting for a favorite sports team and other significators of mere standardization. Your task is not to see inside a television, the wonderful integration of parts, but to receive the cacophony, fragmentation, triviality of screen.
4
Hahah, anything, anyway possible to somehow hang on to the establishment system. Trump will win because the nation has had enough. I am for Bernie, and if they dispatch him, I will write him in. Severely different ideologies but many of the same things driving it: No more establishment politics. No more HRClinton. No more GOP. The people are speaking!
1
This is the simpering whine of the unelected and unelectable but credentialled ideologue, anticipating a dilution in the privileges of unquestioned prestige, as the public vote for someone who to them is unpalatable. The playing field has been agreed upon, it is level for all candidates, and on that field you seem to be losing. But wait you ignoble Nobel laureates, it is yet the third quarter, media cheerleaders are scratching the bottom of the integrity barrel to oppose the very same candidates you opposed (in India) and you are opposing (in America). You may still win. Then what will you do? Complain about the system, or about the majority who actually want to elect someone you don't like into power? Fine democrats you lot are!!!
4
The rule is for leaders of democratic nations to be elected only by a plurality. In Britain the disparity is highly visible, in France the second round of balloting creates the impression of majority voting but elected candidates poll less than a third of the vote at the first ballot. The key question in democracies now is why so many eligible voters abstain. One of the best systems, I think, is the German one in a parliamentary democracy: proportional representation with a minimum of 5% to get representatives.
The system suggested here should also apply to the presidential election itself so there would be more than two major candidates. But then Jill Stein would do much better--so the Dems and Reps would kill the system.
Also if Americans could vote on issues they would vote for better schools, better roads, some forms of gun control, better health insurance, less so-called free trade (which is a license for big companies to dictate their terms to everyone) and probably fewer military interventions. But they would not approve of Trump's raving attacks on women and foreigners.
The system suggested here should also apply to the presidential election itself so there would be more than two major candidates. But then Jill Stein would do much better--so the Dems and Reps would kill the system.
Also if Americans could vote on issues they would vote for better schools, better roads, some forms of gun control, better health insurance, less so-called free trade (which is a license for big companies to dictate their terms to everyone) and probably fewer military interventions. But they would not approve of Trump's raving attacks on women and foreigners.
3
I wonder why our two Nobel laureates failed to mention that Bill Clinton never received more than 44% of the popular vote in his two runs for the White House. Maybe he should have been disqualified for that reason. Then, of course, they failed to mention Lani Guaiier's scheme of supervoting also. Democracy really seems to be a big problem for them.
4
Because it's not true. 50% in 96.
2
Yeah, that's not right - you're thinking of the 1992 election. He got close to 50% in the 1998 election. And I think you're missing the whole point of the article, frankly.
3
No one mentioned disqualification garry. What are you talking about?
2
Simpler scheme: just list 1st and 2nd choice. If your 1st-choice candidate isn't among the top two (by number of 1st-choice votes), your vote then goes to your 2nd choice. So you can put Nader 1st and Gore 2nd, make your statement, but still vote for Gore over Bush.
1
Yes, this strikes me as simple and easily understood. When the voting is over and the results are announced, people can read that, say, Kasich won by getting 75% of the second choice votes and 10% of the first choice votes. A complicated system of weighing votes will confuse many and delegitmatize the results.
To work properly, you have to rank *all* the candidates, to just "1" and "2".
Rating, not ranking.
The Founders of our nation also warned, numerous times, against the establishment of factions (IE: Republican & Democratic Parties)
Source: Federalist Papers, No. 9, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Factions (Hamilton) and No. 10, The Same Subject Continued (Madison)
Source: Federalist Papers, No. 9, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Factions (Hamilton) and No. 10, The Same Subject Continued (Madison)
1
Trump is no more obnoxious to me than the other GOP "candidates," since they agree with each other. Money is good for the rich, but bad for all others.
I am curious how many votes T might get. I want to tally the number of people who care so little about America's future.
I am curious how many votes T might get. I want to tally the number of people who care so little about America's future.
1
I stopped reading this story after "(given his extreme views on many subjects)"about Trump. I think his views are very sensible. I will take one. Have a strong border security. What's wrong with making drugs harder to get in and keeping potential terrorist or criminal gangs, out. Is this an op ed section? The NYTimes has gone down hill. This comment is germane to the way the first 2 paragraphs were written.
3
San Francisco now uses ranked voting. It may be the more rationale system but because it confuses the average voter, there is some talk of going back to the old style. Have no idea if there's traction on change, but there is noise.
Donald Trump is winning fair and square and pundits should just accept it . Donald Trump's victory channels the public anger where both parties are beholden to Wall Street and big money. Both parties were complicit in rescuing Wall Street banks while 10 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure and most Americans lost their life's savings. Donald Trump is seen by the Joe on the street as a straight shooter, who speaks what he thinks. I would not be surprised if he prevails in the main election because Hillary is seen to represent the establishment and the more it pulls for her, the more she will be seen as a flawed, tainted, beholden candidate who speaks different things to different audiences.
1
If the voters had equal power to one another, Trump would not win. He is only winning in a flawed system, not fair and square. Fair and square would be in a system with equality, e. g. Approval.
1
The theoretical Condorcet system outlined here would be for a direct popular vote of one candidate. But the US political parties are not pure democracies in this way, instead, like the system in the US Constitution, they are representative democracies, where delegates from each state and territory are chosen by private rules (agreed by the convention delegates through a majority vote). The delegates in the Republican Party can be selected through several means, including caucuses, conventions, and primaries, and the latter can be proportional or winner-take-all, and binding or not. Unlike in the Democratic Party, they are mostly not proportional, and lack superdelegates. In a representative democratic ballot, it is fairest (as J. S. Mill wrote in 1861) to use proportional representation, and then the delegates representing voters who chose them (by majority vote--or Condorcet vote--in each district) to agree on a majority vote for the nominee, as they are allowed multiple runoffs to decide, not just the one ballot as under the Condorcet system proposed. One unmentioned theoretical problem remains, strategic voting.
3
There is no need to change the system.
Trump was the best:
He screamed the loudest about immigration.
He screamed the loudest about the poor deals that the administration is crafting, both economical and political.
He screamed the loudest about how he had easy solutions: building the wall and making deals.
What was there not to like?
He addressed the concerns of many GOP faithful.
At times he was a bit loud, but so what?
The only real problem is that the GOP faithful can't think.
This is not a problem to be solved by changing how we elect our representatives.
I could talk about the democrats too, it would be only slightly less fun.
Trump was the best:
He screamed the loudest about immigration.
He screamed the loudest about the poor deals that the administration is crafting, both economical and political.
He screamed the loudest about how he had easy solutions: building the wall and making deals.
What was there not to like?
He addressed the concerns of many GOP faithful.
At times he was a bit loud, but so what?
The only real problem is that the GOP faithful can't think.
This is not a problem to be solved by changing how we elect our representatives.
I could talk about the democrats too, it would be only slightly less fun.
4
Of course, what you say of Trump is no less true of any of the other candidates, who in fact have demonstrated even lower levels of support.
It's theoretically possible that one of them was the second choice of a majority. That might, however, have been Trump.
It's theoretically possible that one of them was the second choice of a majority. That might, however, have been Trump.
2
Faulty math going on here. There are 6 ways of ordering 3 candidates: T-C-K, T-K-C, K-T-C, K-C-T, C-T-K, C-K-T. The authors have chosen only 3 possibilities and made up data. To put some meat on this, one should do some polling and find the probabilities of all six, then go through the numbers. As it stands, this is meaningless.
13
There are several alternative voting systems which would have done a better job than plurality voting. Approval voting also would have prevented Donald Trump from being the Republican frontrunner and would prevent any Trump-like candidates from emerging in the future. Approval voting involves marking each candidate on the ballot who you approve of, rather than just the one who you most prefer. The winner would be the candidate with the widest approval and greatest consensus. By emphasizing and maximizing consensus, approval voting would put both political parties on permanently stable ground.
I wrote an editorial on this topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rohit-shetty/trump-product-of-a-flawed_b_9...
I wrote an editorial on this topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rohit-shetty/trump-product-of-a-flawed_b_9...
1
Mr.Sent is a ultra liberal leftist with soft corner for Islamism. I don't know what Indian govt.has to with Trump is beyond. Crushing of dissent he is taking about was when left wing liberals and Islamists had a march at heavily subsidized university in Delhi to destroy the country in pieces.. For Mr. Sen destruction of a country is free speech. He is still sore that in a country with Hindu majority nationalists won. Same thing here in this country.
2
Ranking the candidates sounds like a terrible idea. You are supposed to get one vote, not three.
Have one primary race on the same day for all states, if one candidate doesn't get 50% of the vote, have a run off of the top two. Keep it simple and fair for all with open primaries and easy access to register to vote.
We've simply got to come up with a better election system.
Have one primary race on the same day for all states, if one candidate doesn't get 50% of the vote, have a run off of the top two. Keep it simple and fair for all with open primaries and easy access to register to vote.
We've simply got to come up with a better election system.
2
Is there nothing that will stop this constant discussion of peripheral issues about Donald Trump while our country is being destroyed. Really bad things are happening in Washinton daily but the NYT keeps filling it's pages with more and more discussions about things Trump. How about discussing that Joe Lieberman and Jon Huntsman are taking aimed at Social Security under the disingenuous title "No Labels" . How about the possible merger of Chinese chemical giant ChemChina has begun a $43 billion merger with Swiss-based seed and pesticide company Syngenta to create one of the largest chemical and GMO seed companies in the world or how about House Republicans being poised to pass a bill backed by the Koch Brothers to ELIMINATE disclosure for dark money groups. If it passes, shadowy donors and foreign companies would be free to influence elections with NO oversight.
How about telling the American People what they need to know?
How about telling the American People what they need to know?
83
Just face it. You're getting Trump.
7
It's always possible to come up with a voting system that might have stopped Trump. The Democratic party's super delegates might have served the same purpose. But it's impossible to predict how Trump might have changed his strategy given a different voting system. After all, his positions are completely arbitrary, just chosen for the approval of the crowds, and he's very experienced at making deals with exactly the kind of men who run the Republican party. Are you really sure he couldn't change his strategy and win the nomination under different rules?
1
If he wins because he convinces the voters, the choice of voting system won't correct that. It can't be smarter than the source of its inputs. But at least let's accord the voters equality so the system will reflect their aggregate opinion.
4
This proposed ranking system is probably just going to be confusing to the voters. Why do rankings or pair-wise comparisons at all? Why not just ask each candidate to be scored from 1-10 individually, and then just add up their scores to see who won? This would be simple for the voters, and also representative of the popularity of each candidate.
5
An excellent idea! Back to the roots of the Union when it was still a voluntary Union of States!
Then perhaps the name-naming and insults voiced by politicians one at another would be settled with pistols according to the gentleman's code of honor of the 18th and 19th centuries.
A not-insignificant point would be define the distances in paces between the duelists. On the historical paintings of the Hamilton-Burr duel the distances seem to be less than 10 paces, which is most unlikely: either the perspective on the paintings or my calculation of the linear distance is wrong, or both.
Then perhaps the name-naming and insults voiced by politicians one at another would be settled with pistols according to the gentleman's code of honor of the 18th and 19th centuries.
A not-insignificant point would be define the distances in paces between the duelists. On the historical paintings of the Hamilton-Burr duel the distances seem to be less than 10 paces, which is most unlikely: either the perspective on the paintings or my calculation of the linear distance is wrong, or both.
Does this mean there's still hope for Bernie Sanders running against the DNC-Clinton rigging apparatus in regard to all those unelected Clinton superdelegates, the dodgy delegate counts in several Democratic state primaries and not allowing independent voters to vote in Democrat primaries and caucuses?
4
Bernie is not suffering from a rigged system. As of mid-April, he had 42% of the Democratic vote and 46% of the pledged delegates. In fact, he did much better in caucus states because caucuses are cumbersome and turn out is very low (6.5% in Maine.)
I agree the current electoral system is undemocratic and needs to be overhauled, but rid yourself of the delusion that Bernie is suffering from its defects.
I agree the current electoral system is undemocratic and needs to be overhauled, but rid yourself of the delusion that Bernie is suffering from its defects.
3
Ranking candidates seems rather complicated. Why not just have a run-off election bet. the top two candidates, if no candidate has a majority? This method produces a majority winner, seems fair to all candidates and is transparent and uncomplicated. Better than having a candidate win with only a plurality.
1
To quote the article: "Note also that Mr. Kasich, the majority winner, would come in a poor third under the current system, with only 25 percent support."
In fact, the system described in the article is known as the "instant run-off" system: presuming voters' preferences don't change between candidates when one drops out, removing one candidate and retabulating is exactly what you would get if you ran the run-off having eliminated the least-liked candidate. Everyone who supported someone else still voted for their guy, while those who liked the dropout now vote for their second favorite.
Just like a run-off, no need to hold another election.
Just like a run-off, no need to hold another election.
3
Because you wouldn't be able to vote for the guy you like who "would never win"
1
Isn't this the voting system used in Australia?
Back when there were many Republican candidates, if you added up all the "outsider" candidates, I think that got a majority or near majority in the early voting. Trump is just basically the only one from that camp left on the island (because Cruz, may not be beloved of the party leadership, but he isn't beloved of the tea party, either).
Back when there were many Republican candidates, if you added up all the "outsider" candidates, I think that got a majority or near majority in the early voting. Trump is just basically the only one from that camp left on the island (because Cruz, may not be beloved of the party leadership, but he isn't beloved of the tea party, either).
Yes it is. Not confusing, just not what we've been used to.
1
As Maine Goes, So Goes the Nation.
Ranked Choice Voting is on the November ballot in Maine---a citizen-initiated referendum. We don't find this a difficult concept, and we hope that the vote will show that Mainers understand the power of majority rule. Campaigns would be much more civil, and voters would not feel like their vote might be wasted. Municipalities use it. (San Francisco, for example.) Now our whole state is considering it.
http://www.rcvmaine.com/who_supports_ranked_choice_voting
Ranked Choice Voting is on the November ballot in Maine---a citizen-initiated referendum. We don't find this a difficult concept, and we hope that the vote will show that Mainers understand the power of majority rule. Campaigns would be much more civil, and voters would not feel like their vote might be wasted. Municipalities use it. (San Francisco, for example.) Now our whole state is considering it.
http://www.rcvmaine.com/who_supports_ranked_choice_voting
14
Proportional (ranked "choice") voting has been used in local elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for many years.
2
You mean how the MVPs in baseball are selected?
3
In Brasil if one has more than 50% he wins the election, otherwise we will have another election, with the two better adversaries, one month later.
2
I’m opposed to fiddling with the electoral system. No half measures. No fine print. Any change I would support would have to start with overturning Citizens United and outlawing all private money from political campaigns (i.e. public funding); and uniform rules for all 50 states when it comes to national candidates
BTW, we have ranked choice voting in the SF Bay Area and some odd ducks end up in office that nobody expected or even heard of, like the previous mayor of Oakland, who had no people skills, political skills, or any ability to deal with controversy because she had never been in the limelight. Because everyone tries to be #2, candidates spend more time conveying “niceness” instead of fighting over issues with fisticuffs.
BTW, we have ranked choice voting in the SF Bay Area and some odd ducks end up in office that nobody expected or even heard of, like the previous mayor of Oakland, who had no people skills, political skills, or any ability to deal with controversy because she had never been in the limelight. Because everyone tries to be #2, candidates spend more time conveying “niceness” instead of fighting over issues with fisticuffs.
4
Approval Voting would stop electing odd ducks.
2
And what of Bullet Voting? How would you preclude parties/interests groups/candidates from directing folks to select a single candidate?
Fine, given reasonable candidates this system would work. Given reasonable candidates any system will work. The Republicans, and therefore all Americans, need a system to elect a reasonable candidate from a collection of nut jobs.
1
"so that the non-Trump vote was split"
This is a fallacy.
It is a fallacy to say that every vote for every other candidate was a "non-Trump vote."
That presumes that if they did not have the choice for which they did vote, they would all have voted for anyone else "not-Trump" but never for Trump.
If it was just one-on-one, they could have voted not-Cruz or not-Jeb or whoever the other choice was. This presumes that if reduced to one or the other, their 16th choice from the 18 would have been whoever was not Trump.
Since Trump was already at 33% in this example, and all the others were single digit, Trump would have need to pick up another 17% +1, while the one alternative this allows, whichever he was, would have needed to pick up another 40%+.
There is no reason to imagine that every voter who did not make Trump his first pick would have voted for anybody-but-Trump.
This is a fallacy.
It is a fallacy to say that every vote for every other candidate was a "non-Trump vote."
That presumes that if they did not have the choice for which they did vote, they would all have voted for anyone else "not-Trump" but never for Trump.
If it was just one-on-one, they could have voted not-Cruz or not-Jeb or whoever the other choice was. This presumes that if reduced to one or the other, their 16th choice from the 18 would have been whoever was not Trump.
Since Trump was already at 33% in this example, and all the others were single digit, Trump would have need to pick up another 17% +1, while the one alternative this allows, whichever he was, would have needed to pick up another 40%+.
There is no reason to imagine that every voter who did not make Trump his first pick would have voted for anybody-but-Trump.
34
Sure there's a reason to imagine it: Trump has set new records in disapproval.
That doesn't mean it has to be true, though. But the author's aren't claiming it is; just that it might have been. So, you're wrong, there's no "fallacy": you just think they are claiming something they weren't.
That doesn't mean it has to be true, though. But the author's aren't claiming it is; just that it might have been. So, you're wrong, there's no "fallacy": you just think they are claiming something they weren't.
1
But some did pick "anybody but Trump". Those who picked Kasich first and Cruz second picked anybody but Trump; likewise, so did those who picked Cruz first and Kasich second. Besides, this method is not designed to kick out a candidate; it's designed to pick out the candidate the majority of voters will settle for.
2
You are right. But I think you doth protest too much. Are you perhaps confusing an example of how the system might have worked with a prediction as to how it would have worked?
All this noise and angst might well be worth it - if we as a nation could now have a real conversation on how our elections are decided, and decisions made.
It should be evident - the current processes are not working. Locked. Who knows, we might actually get antagonists to at least agree that we must try different ways.
The current system leaves those who lose feeling utterly powerless and disassociated from the community; their voice is not heard nor regarded. Then comes anger, then comes hate, to justify the anger. The House Divided.
Yes, civil war looms again. Can we learn from our own history, at least; and this time find some pathway without bullets? We should try.
It should be evident - the current processes are not working. Locked. Who knows, we might actually get antagonists to at least agree that we must try different ways.
The current system leaves those who lose feeling utterly powerless and disassociated from the community; their voice is not heard nor regarded. Then comes anger, then comes hate, to justify the anger. The House Divided.
Yes, civil war looms again. Can we learn from our own history, at least; and this time find some pathway without bullets? We should try.
3
Another, and simpler, system is "approval" voting, in which instead of ranking the candidates, a voter gives each one a "yes" or "no" rating, and the candidate with the most "yes" responses wins (in the manner of an applause meter). This eliminates the problem of "spoiler" candidates: for example, in 2000 one could have entered "yes" on both Al Gore AND Ralph Nader, without Nader stealing votes from Gore. It also gives a "none of the above" option, by entering "no" on every candidate, rather than abstaining altogether from voting.
6
The only problem with your logic is you assume all votes that weren't for Trump are Anti-Trump. That is obviously NOT the case. Trump was getting in 30's with 16 other people. Truthfully, that is remarkable. Trump was certainly many people's second choice and the proof is when they got out of the race Trump's numbers went up.
Now as the race is down to 3 he is getting in the 60's. Again unprecedented.
The truth is Hillary is gonna have a problem!
Now as the race is down to 3 he is getting in the 60's. Again unprecedented.
The truth is Hillary is gonna have a problem!
15
Would Trump win under Approval Voting, or would some other candidate beat him?
1
If a truly awful candidate is nominated, then hopefully that person will lose in the general, which is a one to one contest. It is true I can see how a bad candidate can be selected with this system. (I don't mind Trump all that much.) It is scary that a bad candidate can be selected, though.
1
Bad candidate based on whose opinion? Once again we go down the merry lane of " don't worry, I know what is best for you..." That can backfire too. It would be nice if we got rid of the delegates and had simple primaries
1
And what if a bad candidate is selected by each of the two major parties because of plurality voting? What does that make the 1 on 1 general election?
And, for that matter, why *should* the general election be a 1 on 1 contest, as the authors have just demonstrated that it's possible to have a multi-way election without any vote splitting?
Multi-choice voting, whether Ranked or Approval, is truly the only thing that can save democracy. Unfortunately either is kryptonite to the current Dem/Rep duopoly, so whenever the subject comes up anybody whose own personal fortunes rest with the two-party system (in other words, all professional politicians, their staffs, and their big donors) try to scare us with how broken these systems are.
But they are lying.
And, for that matter, why *should* the general election be a 1 on 1 contest, as the authors have just demonstrated that it's possible to have a multi-way election without any vote splitting?
Multi-choice voting, whether Ranked or Approval, is truly the only thing that can save democracy. Unfortunately either is kryptonite to the current Dem/Rep duopoly, so whenever the subject comes up anybody whose own personal fortunes rest with the two-party system (in other words, all professional politicians, their staffs, and their big donors) try to scare us with how broken these systems are.
But they are lying.
1
There is also approval voting, in which one may vote for as many candidates as one approves of, although able to cast only one vote per candidate. Would this have given us different results in the primaries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
4
A Modest Proposal (but hard to implement) is to have a runoff between the top two if no one wins the majority. That's how it is done in many elections. This will implement majority rule, pure and simple. But america is anything but simple!
Which is better, majority rule, or equality among the voters?
Would this be a bad time to mention that under 18th century electoral constructs, that women, white men who didn't own land and African Americans (I'm a Black lawyer in Washington DC, with a degree in American History so this is the part I focused on) couldn't vote?
How applicable is a study of a voting method created in and for a time when the aggregate majority of Americans today (non-white, non-male, non-land owning) couldn't cast a ballot? Under 18th Century confines, Hillary Clinton couldn't even run for President, and Barack Obama wouldn't even be considered a human being, despite strong proof that he may not be much of one.
I'm completely sure that the way leaders were selected in the 9th century, if applied today would also exclude...
How applicable is a study of a voting method created in and for a time when the aggregate majority of Americans today (non-white, non-male, non-land owning) couldn't cast a ballot? Under 18th Century confines, Hillary Clinton couldn't even run for President, and Barack Obama wouldn't even be considered a human being, despite strong proof that he may not be much of one.
I'm completely sure that the way leaders were selected in the 9th century, if applied today would also exclude...
14
These were, of course, great injustices. But this has nothing to do with the voting method itself, only with the determination of who is allowed to vote. So this comment does not present a reasonable objection to the voting method defended in the article.
18
Exactly, yes. This is not the world of 1776 - nothing is the same, top to bottom; and if we keep pretending it is; it will surely destroy "what the Founders intended".
2
I don't see the point of this. Are you saying that Kasich would be the winner at 23% of the popular vote? Is that how elections at Harvard are conducted?
8
"Replacing a plurality rule with majority rule would improve American primaries." The only evidence defending that statement is that Trump wouldn't be the Republican front-runner under a majority rule system. Instead, Kasich, a candidate who has a vanishingly small amount of support among Republican primary voters would be the front-runner. How does that equate to the will of the people? Trump is the front-runner because Republicans themselves cannot agree on a vision for the future of the party/country. Then people argue it's not fair, because they don't like Trump... life isn't fair.
2
Approval Voting would be more fair than the current system. If you can get from less fair to more fair, why not go for it?
2
Concordcet is one of a number of voting systems that give a fairer (by several criteria) outcome to an election than the current first past the post.
But why stop there? The whole primary/delegate/electoral college system is an artifact of 18th century communications limitations. Why not just have all candidates on the ballot for the election in November and use an instant runoff system to choose the winner?
(Wikipedia on instant runoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)
But why stop there? The whole primary/delegate/electoral college system is an artifact of 18th century communications limitations. Why not just have all candidates on the ballot for the election in November and use an instant runoff system to choose the winner?
(Wikipedia on instant runoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)
11
Ranking candidates and determining a winner based on pairwise combinations is an interesting approach. However, this approach works best when you a small number of candidates; in the example presented here, the author uses just 3 candidates. Votes can easily grasp this concept and make a quick decision about how to rank 3 candidates. However, what happens when you have 17 candidates, as was the case when the Republican primary started? Not only will ranking 17 individuals be taxing for a voter, it will also cause huge delays in voting since people will spend a lot more time in the voting booth (vs simply selecting a single candidate). This problem doesn't really solve itself as candidates drop out because all the candidates are listed on the voting form (at least that was the case in Georgia), so you would still be required to rank all of them. As an alternative to a complete ranking system, maybe you should just pick your top 3 and rank those.
I do disagree with the author's hypothesis that if all the opposition has coalesced around a single candidate, Trump would have lost the first several primaries. I voted for Kasich, but if he had not been on the ballot, I would have voted for Trump. I will never vote for Cruz because I consider him a sanctimonious weasel. There are a lot of people who feel the same way I do, and I believe Trump would still have won the primaries.
I do disagree with the author's hypothesis that if all the opposition has coalesced around a single candidate, Trump would have lost the first several primaries. I voted for Kasich, but if he had not been on the ballot, I would have voted for Trump. I will never vote for Cruz because I consider him a sanctimonious weasel. There are a lot of people who feel the same way I do, and I believe Trump would still have won the primaries.
Voting booths are outdated. Vote by mail solves this problem.
I feel dirty just walking through this method - it feels like picking through a landfill. All of these candidates are unfit for office. The only reasonable choice on the Republican side is none of the above. Include that in the list, and you've got me.
1
Versions of ranked choice or instant runoff voting exist around the world and in several places in the U.S. It is clearly a better way to conduct elections. Much less negative campaigning, because candidates want to be your second choice if they're not your first, and, perhaps more relevant to why it hasn't been more widely adopted here yet, there is no more need for so called strategic voting where we don't vote for the candidates who's policies we most agree with. Each of our two major parties depends on the boogieman threat of the other to hold onto power in places where the electorate is solidly to the right or left of center and a minor party candidate would actually be more representative of the electorate and its needs.
6
and how does your proposal get a field of 17 or more "down-to" a small group of 3?
and how would the ballots be "counted"?
and how would a voter review and correct her ballot before submitting?
making certain that the sequence chosen is correct?
what of write-ins?
why is Top 3 the magic mix?
why not Top 10?
how many "elections" would you propose for each district, area, or state?
in the end,
it does not appear that in 2016,
any one else would have "defeated" Mr. Trump,
on the whole...
witness Florida, New York, the voting this week.
if we could manage to start-over with the three remaining candidates:
Cruz would "win" some locales, one on one against Trump...
Kasich far less likely...
the other 14 or so that have dropped-out? any? where? how?
while it is easy to "pile-on" with the 'Trump-did-not-get-a-majority' mantra,
how would we describe Mr. Bush's "results"? far, far less-than-a-majority?
top-2 runoffs in every jurisdiction,
where a 50%+1 result did not occur,
would require:
who gets to vote in the runoff?
only those who voted in the first round?
or?
gets kinda complicated doesn't it?
the parliamentary systems seem to develop into multi-party affairs that require manufactured-coalitions in order to form governments...
perhaps America could somehow create viable third, fourth, and fifth parties
to better ( ? ? ) reflect the "will-of-the-people"...
finally:
what is a "majority"?
of eligible voters?
of citizens?
of ____?
chapter two awaits.
1
When you ask how the proposal gets a field of 17 or more down to a group of three, this shows that you miss the point. The case of three candidates was merely one that the author of the article used to illustrate Condorcet voting. If there are 17 candidates (or, in principle, 117 or any number), voters rank order them and then, if there is a Condorcet winner, that person wins the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
4
So, in short, maybe we should use the system sportswriters use to select the MVP and Coach of the Year in the NBA? I think that would be an easier sell than Marquis de Condorce.
2
Why are the NYT & its hired hands so keen to 'stop' Trump? Are we really supposed to believe that Bush3, Carly, Cruz et al were so superior? Or is the NYT afraid that Trump might just be the only GOP candidate with some possibility of beating its long endorsed GOP-lite HRC?
17
"Why are the NY Times and its hired hands so keen to stop Trump?"
Maybe because they know him far better than the rest of the country. He's been blustering around NYC since the 80s when he inherited $200m after his father died and initiated a series of bankruptcies to keep his highly leveraged assets afloat. It should mean a lot that many from his home town and state do not think well enough of him to support him.
Maybe because they know him far better than the rest of the country. He's been blustering around NYC since the 80s when he inherited $200m after his father died and initiated a series of bankruptcies to keep his highly leveraged assets afloat. It should mean a lot that many from his home town and state do not think well enough of him to support him.
7
This is, coincidentally, one of the best possible ways to make 3rd-party candidates (and 3rd-parties in general) viable in American politics. I would love to see ranked choice voting in American elections.
15
The list of important election procedure revisions goes well beyond arcane political party rules for delegate allocation. The entire electoral process needs a complete modernization with a focus on one person/one vote. We need a fixed national date for all state primaries to be conducted by popular vote with an elimination of the absurd Party caucuses. We need a shortened campaign period. We need to do away with the antiquated Electoral College. We need to make voting possible on weekends...and the list goes on. The system is indeed broken.
6
There is an equally competing (and more common) 'election model' called 'single transferable vote'. San Francisco Mayor and India's 'upper house' & its President are elected by that model.
In that model, voters gives a rank or preference list.
In that model, Kasich gets only 25% first preference votes. He gets disqualified and his second preference votes, which is Cruz, is added to Cruz's total thus giving him 60% votes and he wins.
The authors need to give a convincing argument why the Condorcet Model is better than STV model. In the age of huge computing power, calculating the result is easy.
In that model, voters gives a rank or preference list.
In that model, Kasich gets only 25% first preference votes. He gets disqualified and his second preference votes, which is Cruz, is added to Cruz's total thus giving him 60% votes and he wins.
The authors need to give a convincing argument why the Condorcet Model is better than STV model. In the age of huge computing power, calculating the result is easy.
23
STV is still a ranking system and I don't know that you can show that it accords equal power to each voter as to each other voter. I recommend Approval Voting or its generalization Range Voting.
2
Might have......could have.....would have......what's the sense in such speculation? So much effort spent in speculation but to what end? Seems like every pundit has to get their licks in before this dismal election season comes to a bitter end but honestly I don't read The Times because I want to wallow in speculation. I read The Times for news and relevant information and this sort of speculative article is really a huge waste of time.
2
Some very good points. However what would be so difficult about simply having our nation's primary's all take place, if not on the same day, at least in the same week. Case in point:
Iowa, NH, NV, SC, Alaska, AK, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK and TN - combined representing just 17% of the population - voted (in the primaries) between 2-to-4 weeks before even the 3rd most populous state, FL, had any say. And currently the largest state, CA, with over 12% of our population, has yet to vote - this despite the fact that out of 16 or 17 potential Republican candidates, we are down to either 1 or 3 - depending on your view.
In other words - places like NH (0.45% of the population) and SC (1.52%) of the population) have, in essence, determined the candidate roster and, by default, the vote for CA, NY, FL & TX (combined 33.2% of the population.
In other words - we elect a president by all voting on one day - but we somehow manage to spend months and tens of billions of extra dollars to do the opposite of this in the current primary system.
Iowa, NH, NV, SC, Alaska, AK, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK and TN - combined representing just 17% of the population - voted (in the primaries) between 2-to-4 weeks before even the 3rd most populous state, FL, had any say. And currently the largest state, CA, with over 12% of our population, has yet to vote - this despite the fact that out of 16 or 17 potential Republican candidates, we are down to either 1 or 3 - depending on your view.
In other words - places like NH (0.45% of the population) and SC (1.52%) of the population) have, in essence, determined the candidate roster and, by default, the vote for CA, NY, FL & TX (combined 33.2% of the population.
In other words - we elect a president by all voting on one day - but we somehow manage to spend months and tens of billions of extra dollars to do the opposite of this in the current primary system.
4
There is a MATHEMATICAL problem with our binary voting system especially when applied to an office with more than 2 viable candidates. The ranking system suggested by this editorial is I believe still inferior to a RATING system where each candidate for an office is separately rated on a scale (e.g., 1 to 10). These rating & ranking systems (& variations) are not perfect (none is), but they help considerably in avoiding "vote splitting" & "spoiler" problems our current binary system causes, such as some say caused Gore to lose to GW Bush in 2000 because Nader split away votes from Gore. (Did Perot do the same to Bush in 1992?)
If we had an optional RATING system of voting, Sanders might be able to run as a viable independent without splitting votes away from Hillary, as many are concerned, or for that matter Trump could run as an independent without splitting votes from the Republican candidate. Our binary voting system is dysfunctional when there are more than 2 viable candidates and causes us often to be unable to vote for candidates we really prefer for fear of splitting the vote & allowing a strongly disliked candidate to slip in. And it makes it difficult for good 3rd Party candidates to run.
Google "range voting" or "rating voting" to learn more. Also, see
"Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair" (2008) by William Poundstone.
(Note: this is a SEPARATE issue from the electoral college system which elects a president, which has pros & cons of its own).
If we had an optional RATING system of voting, Sanders might be able to run as a viable independent without splitting votes away from Hillary, as many are concerned, or for that matter Trump could run as an independent without splitting votes from the Republican candidate. Our binary voting system is dysfunctional when there are more than 2 viable candidates and causes us often to be unable to vote for candidates we really prefer for fear of splitting the vote & allowing a strongly disliked candidate to slip in. And it makes it difficult for good 3rd Party candidates to run.
Google "range voting" or "rating voting" to learn more. Also, see
"Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair" (2008) by William Poundstone.
(Note: this is a SEPARATE issue from the electoral college system which elects a president, which has pros & cons of its own).
9
Two other voting systems could avoid, and have avoided, the kinds of objectionable outcomes described here. In "approval voting", you vote yes or no on each candidate. The one with the most yes votes wins. In "instant runoff" (which has other names, and some variants), voters rank the candidates. If nobody has a majority on the top ranks, then the candidate with the fewest top ranks is eliminated, and her second-rank choices are divided among the other candidates. And so on, until one gets a majority (or until a tie).
Each method has advantages and disadvantages relative to the others. For example, the Condorcet method and approval voting are not guaranteed to produce a winner with majority support. But approval voting is easier in some situations, especially when elections include obscure candidates who cannot reasonably be ranked. But it is hard to think of any advantage of the present system over any of these three, except "tradition!".
Wikipedia has good articles about all these approaches.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages relative to the others. For example, the Condorcet method and approval voting are not guaranteed to produce a winner with majority support. But approval voting is easier in some situations, especially when elections include obscure candidates who cannot reasonably be ranked. But it is hard to think of any advantage of the present system over any of these three, except "tradition!".
Wikipedia has good articles about all these approaches.
16
There is a fatal flaw to their argument.
It is designed to elect, in this case, who THEY want, as they expect things
would have gone.
The fatal flaw is that in some other case the system they propose might elect
someone OTHER than the one they want, whereas the present system would elect who they want.
There is only one "perfect" voting system, that always elects who the
"person that counts" wants, as well expounded by Josef Stalin: "its
not who votes or what they vote that counts, its who counts the votes" (paraphrased). That is, an absolute dictatorship.
It is designed to elect, in this case, who THEY want, as they expect things
would have gone.
The fatal flaw is that in some other case the system they propose might elect
someone OTHER than the one they want, whereas the present system would elect who they want.
There is only one "perfect" voting system, that always elects who the
"person that counts" wants, as well expounded by Josef Stalin: "its
not who votes or what they vote that counts, its who counts the votes" (paraphrased). That is, an absolute dictatorship.
1
Denying reality in regards to humanity, the environment, the economy, the constant commingling of religion and politics, and the long term consequences of a government continually lying to the people creates a kind of insanity in voters I guess.
1
The same could have been said of Hilary. Yet, one would think that there was only one democrat in the entire country.
5
Of course, one could have wrote the same article about the Democrats.
In both parties, they have come up with their convoluted systems to rig the primaries for their choice. It worked fro the Democrats. For the Republicans they were not expecting almost 20 to enter the race. Their, pre-ordained choice Jeb Bush, for the Democrats; Hillary Clinton.
Majority rule would have no affect, if the parties will not observe it to begin with. And, like the Electoral College, a candidate just needs enough to squeak by to win a state.
Fro example, Hillary Clinton won every state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, states she would never win in a general election. Conversely, Mr. Trump won a number of states a Republican could win, but Ted Cruz won states which are more religiously conservative. He would not win the states that Trump won, as Clinton would not win a number of states she won.
Our system, of campaigning from the day of the last election, for nearly four years, having primaries, conventions and an election, do not produce the best candidates. This is very obvious this year. And, endless election cycles have become costly and making voters more and more hostile.
The only solution to this, is shorten the campaign to 6 - 8 months. Have a national primary, for all of the available parties/candidates, on one Saturday, about 3 month before the election. Then,the final campaign before the November election. No party rigging, no conventions and all publicly funded.
In both parties, they have come up with their convoluted systems to rig the primaries for their choice. It worked fro the Democrats. For the Republicans they were not expecting almost 20 to enter the race. Their, pre-ordained choice Jeb Bush, for the Democrats; Hillary Clinton.
Majority rule would have no affect, if the parties will not observe it to begin with. And, like the Electoral College, a candidate just needs enough to squeak by to win a state.
Fro example, Hillary Clinton won every state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, states she would never win in a general election. Conversely, Mr. Trump won a number of states a Republican could win, but Ted Cruz won states which are more religiously conservative. He would not win the states that Trump won, as Clinton would not win a number of states she won.
Our system, of campaigning from the day of the last election, for nearly four years, having primaries, conventions and an election, do not produce the best candidates. This is very obvious this year. And, endless election cycles have become costly and making voters more and more hostile.
The only solution to this, is shorten the campaign to 6 - 8 months. Have a national primary, for all of the available parties/candidates, on one Saturday, about 3 month before the election. Then,the final campaign before the November election. No party rigging, no conventions and all publicly funded.
53
A "jungle primary" can also produce a very strange result. There was a heavily Democratic California district where because there were so many Democratic candidates, the run-off was between the two Republicans.
And, really, do we need more than a four month campaign??
And, really, do we need more than a four month campaign??
1
Well, no, you can't write the same article about the Democrats, precisely because the Democrat race this year turned into a two-person race early on.
Hillary Clinton has won over 50% of the votes in Democrat primaries. That means a majority of Democrats voted for her to be the nominee.
In the Republican primaries, however, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich combined have won 14 million votes, while Trump has won 10 million, less than 42% of the total GOP votes. He cannot yet claim to have majority support among Republicans.
Hillary Clinton has won over 50% of the votes in Democrat primaries. That means a majority of Democrats voted for her to be the nominee.
In the Republican primaries, however, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich combined have won 14 million votes, while Trump has won 10 million, less than 42% of the total GOP votes. He cannot yet claim to have majority support among Republicans.
11
Honestly, I like what they do in Canada; at most 90 - 120 days and its over. But, they do not have the Electoral College wither; and have at least 4 viable parties.
Labour (Liberal Democrats - similar Sanders)
Conservative (Republican - similar Senator Snow of Maine)
New Democrat (Similar to Clinton and Obama)
QLP (Quebec Seperatist Party) - Tends to be similar to Labour
Of course voting fro a Member of Parliament, is far different than voting for President here. You don't vote fro the Prime Minister in most countries modeled on the British Parliament. The US equivalent would be voting fro a member of the House. But, unlike Canada, the House has an 800,000 to 1 ratio, as opposed to Canada's 15,000 to 1.
Of course, with multiple parties, than two, you would not end up with all GOP, because, like Canada, the Us also has really 4 - 5 parties of their own, meshed within the two. Coalitions, which are formed in Canada to govern.
And one beauty of Canada, you are sick of what is going on, a government can be dissolved and new elections held. In a way, that is far more democratic than the US system.
Labour (Liberal Democrats - similar Sanders)
Conservative (Republican - similar Senator Snow of Maine)
New Democrat (Similar to Clinton and Obama)
QLP (Quebec Seperatist Party) - Tends to be similar to Labour
Of course voting fro a Member of Parliament, is far different than voting for President here. You don't vote fro the Prime Minister in most countries modeled on the British Parliament. The US equivalent would be voting fro a member of the House. But, unlike Canada, the House has an 800,000 to 1 ratio, as opposed to Canada's 15,000 to 1.
Of course, with multiple parties, than two, you would not end up with all GOP, because, like Canada, the Us also has really 4 - 5 parties of their own, meshed within the two. Coalitions, which are formed in Canada to govern.
And one beauty of Canada, you are sick of what is going on, a government can be dissolved and new elections held. In a way, that is far more democratic than the US system.
8