Results tagged “approval voting” from onegoodmove

IRV Bill In Congress

Cyndy has the lowdown on the first bill ever submitted to Congress to institue IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) and while I personally favor approval voting I'll gladly get behind any effort that has a chance of replacing the flawed plurality system now in place.

MoveOn.org Results

MoveOn Primary Results

Top three plurality voting

Dean 43.87%
Kucinich 29.93%
Kerry 15.73%

Top three approval voting

Dean 86.02%
Kerry 75.29%
Kucinich 68.25%


Press Release
Full Results

No candidate won a majority in this week�s first-ever Democratic online presidential primary, therefore MoveOn.org PAC will not make an endorsement at this time

No Sir That's Not History

An open letter to Charles Taylor
No doubt about it -- you did distort history!

A response to his Dear Nader Voters

By Norm Jenson

Dear Charles,

How are you? It's been a while since I've heard such blatant bullshit. It hasn't been the two-and-a half-years since the Florida mess. Many have carried the banner in your stead. Nary a month goes by that someone doesn't trot out that tired old argument, the one that but for Nader Gore would have been elected. Yes many have carried the banner, and frankly, it is getting tiresome.

I'll address your argument in a moment, but first let me ask you why start with the voters? Why not put it squarely on Ralph's shoulders? If Ralph Nader had not run for president Gore would have been elected. You could even go further back than that. If the constitution had simply limited the number of candidates for president to two Gore would have been elected. You could place the blame squarely on the Founding Fathers for such a poorly thought out system of government. That's right George, Thomas if you hadn't ... Gore would have been elected president. I understand, your article would not have worked as well. When you reached the part where you wanted to send us all to fight because we "allowed" Bush to become president you would have found George and Tom not really in condition to fight.

So let's examine your proposition. Those who voted for Ralph Nader are somehow responsible for George Bush getting elected and the history that has followed. Your argument that if we hadn't voted for Nader Gore would have won is a counterfactual. That is a conditional proposition with a contrary to fact hypothesis. The problem with counterfactuals such as this one is there is no way to determine their truth. We cannot know whether a sufficient number of those that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, since there were other alternatives. Some would have voted for other candidates some may even have voted for Bush, and still others might not have voted at all. Since we cannot go back and rerun the election there is no way to know whether enough would have voted for Gore. To argue that Nader, or Nader voters are responsible for George's victory is a very weak argument.

Finger pointing is easy isn't it? If Charles Taylor had written more, had taken more time to explain the issues, more people would have voted for Gore. Let's send Charles to Iraq. If all those with the means to provide financial support to Gore had simply provided a little more then more people would have voted for Gore. Lets send all those stingy bastards to Iraq. If all those that didn't vote at all had voted more would have voted for Gore... Are you with me yet? A better question is why should we blame those who voted against Bush why should they be singled out to fight his war or as the sole makers of history? Why aren't you arguing that all those that actually voted for Bush should be the ones fighting the war? That would be wrong but it makes more sense than the argument you present. The real question is what is the point of your blame game. Are you suggesting that we should only have two choices when we go to the polls. Are you going to spearhead the drive to amend the constitution to make it so? Are you suggesting that we march in lock step with the party, any party, is that democracy? The problem Charles is not multiple candidates but plurality voting. Let me suggest an alternative to plurality voting and your blame game. Let me suggest that you, and all Americans that want elected officials that more closely reflect their views to support approval voting. What is approval voting? Approval voting is a voting procedure in which voters can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they wish. Each candidate approved of receives one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. It is easy to play the blame game Charles it is more difficult to make a difference. So why don't you get off your butt and do something constructive. Volunteer to make it a better country not just criticize those who are trying. In this time of uncertainty and fear, your country needs you.


Ralph Responds

Election Choices

Are we using the worst voting procedure?

Nearly all political elections in the United States are plurality votes, in which each voter selects a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Yet voting theorists argue that plurality voting is one of the worst of all possible choices. "It's a terrible system," says Alexander Tabarrok, an economist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and director of research for the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. "Almost anything looks good compared to it."


My choice is approval voting as I discussed here

Thanks to Provenance Unknown for the Science News Link

Approval Voting

I have to disagree with those that blame Ralph Nader for the George Bush presidency. We have George as president because 49% of the American people, the Supreme Court, and an unfair voting system made it so. Plurality voting often distorts results and is not always fair. The problem comes from the all or nothing nature of the system which while fine if there are only two candidates breaks down in multi-candidate races. In the last national election one was forced to vote for either Bush, Gore, Nader, or Buchanan when what many would really have liked to do is vote for more than one. For example I want Nader if I can't have him I'd take Al Gore but under no circumstances do I want George Bush or if you are conservative perhaps you would have liked to see Pat Buchanan elected, but if not him then George Bush. The problem is if you vote for a third party candidate the effect might be to help a candidate you despise. The solution is so simple so fair so democratic that its adoption would seem unlikely. I speak of Approval Voting. The basic idea of approval voting is that one can vote for as many candidates as you like, but only one vote for each candidate it is a question of fairness. The effect, I can say that I would like Ralph Nader for president and at the same time say, but if he doesn't succeed I would like Al Gore. I don't contribute to George Bushes success when that is the last thing I want to happen. Democracy is about choice something we have very little of with the current state of the two party system. Approval Voting is in my opinion the answer.

Here is an excellent page on approval voting with many informative links.
Here is their introduction to approval voting.

Continue reading "Approval Voting" »