Hypothetical voting system reform

How do you think would the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election be if the voting system was changed to the following:

• Everyone gets 1 vote
• You can cast your vote negatively or positively on a single candidate
• The candidate with the highest amount of net votes wins the presidency

Discuss.

Do you mean how would the election go if it was a straight democracy?

Because that's how you get mob rule.

Hillary won California by more than 4 million votes, but that doesn't give her any advantage in the current electoral college system.

Half the country lives in a handful of large cities. If the only thing that mattered was the popular vote, there would be no reason for any presidential candidate to give a shit about anyone except the people in those big cities. Obviously these cities are reliably made up of left wing communists, so it makes sense that the Left is crying about the electoral college right now. They would gain a permanent advantage over all other political parties by having the country switch to a popular vote system.

This country is basically a collection (or Republic) of smaller countries (states) and our voting system is designed for STATES rights, more than the rights of individual voters to steamroll the rest with their dumb ideas (mob rule). If we changed to a system where it was one person one vote, or something similar, you would see many states leaning towards leaving the union.

DISCLAIMER: because half of you have cooked your brain with drugs, I know I have to say this. I self identify as Libertarian. Which is technically part of "The Left" in the United States. But Democrats, and the Left as a whole have swung so far towards communism that I really don't think it can survive long-term. More people on a college campus today can ramble minutia of the theories of Karl Marx than could tell you what basic Western values are. Just being conservative leaning in political talk makes you counter-culture

Everyone only having one vote means we're still unable to choose who we think is the best 2nd option. I don't think this proposed voting system would do much to solve the 2 party system unless you were able to vote positively or negatively on each candidate individually.

Half the country lives in a handful of large cities. If the only thing that mattered was the popular vote, there would be no reason for any presidential candidate to give a shit about anyone except the people in those big cities.

How about if the system proposed was used in conjunction with the electoral college? I'm not complaining about the electoral college in any way btw, I think it's a genius idea.

Everyone only having one vote means we're still unable to choose who we think is the best 2nd option. I don't think this proposed voting system would do much to solve the 2 party system unless you were able to vote positively or negatively on each candidate individually.

Maybe it wouldn't solve the 2 party system, but this election had a pretty low turnout, which I think was caused by the fact that most people weren't too fond of either(popular) candidates. Being able to vote negatively on a candidate will increase turnout.

Quote from: rachel on December 18, 2016, 11:36:23 am

Everyone only having one vote means we're still unable to choose who we think is the best 2nd option. I don't think this proposed voting system would do much to solve the 2 party system unless you were able to vote positively or negatively on each candidate individually.

Maybe it wouldn't solve the 2 party system, but this election had a pretty low turnout, which I think was caused by the fact that most people weren't too fond of either(popular) candidates. Being able to vote negatively on a candidate will increase turnout.

Your proposed system would still force someone to cast a vote "for" the other popular candidate, by negating a pro candidate vote. Basically a vote "against" Hillary would be a vote "for" Trump

I like australia's system, personally.

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference..
..The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk.

I feel like a lot more people would vote third party if we had this kind of system.

Quote from: h on December 18, 2016, 11:43:00 am

Quote from: rachel on December 18, 2016, 11:36:23 am

Everyone only having one vote means we're still unable to choose who we think is the best 2nd option. I don't think this proposed voting system would do much to solve the 2 party system unless you were able to vote positively or negatively on each candidate individually.

Maybe it wouldn't solve the 2 party system, but this election had a pretty low turnout, which I think was caused by the fact that most people weren't too fond of either(popular) candidates. Being able to vote negatively on a candidate will increase turnout.

Your proposed system would still force someone to cast a vote "for" the other popular candidate, by negating a pro candidate vote. Basically a vote "against" Hillary would be a vote "for" Trump

More like a vote "against" Hillary would be a vote "for" all of the other candidates

I like australia's system, personally.

Quote from: wikipedia

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference..
..The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk.

I feel like a lot more people would vote third party if we had this kind of system.

Yeah, that's pretty good

I like australia's system, personally.

Quote from: wikipedia

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference..
..The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk.

I feel like a lot more people would vote third party if we had this kind of system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/

Wow so much different.

A two party system forces you to choose between PC and Mac.

One is cheaper and offers more freedom

One costs more than it has any reason to, and offers complete homogeneity even at the cost of functionality.

Quote from: redheron on December 18, 2016, 11:47:28 am

I like australia's system, personally.

Quote from: wikipedia

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference..
..The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk.

I feel like a lot more people would vote third party if we had this kind of system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/

Wow so much different.

A two party system forces you to choose between PC and Mac.

One is cheaper and offers more freedom

One costs more than it has any reason to, and offers complete homogeneity even at the cost of functionality.

Except other people can choose Linux or whatever they want and can do their own thing in peace in their own homes without subjecting an entire country to the whims of a lying manbaby who can't even keep his cool on twitter.

This analogy was already retarded before I mangled it, btw.

This thread is starting to get a bit off topic. Let's keep it civil and avoid nonsense analogies (both of you)

There are many examples of different electoral systems in use all over the world. Ranked choice voting is even used here in the US in some parts of Maine.

I think it's important to think about what the desired result of the election is. Presidential elections are a bit harder to decide because ultimately they can only have one winner. However, proportional representation is used with great success in Iceland's parliamentary elections. Instead of voting on specific representatives, everyone votes on what party they support and those parties are given seats based on the percent of the vote they receive. It is then up to the party to determine who those representatives are.

I think this system produces better results because it forces people to consider the ideals of each party and vote on those principles instead of whichever figurehead is more charismatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2016

You can see from this graph that the political spectrum in Iceland is far more diverse than what most other countries have:



What do you think? Is the political diversity in Iceland due to the relative small size of the population or because of the political system itself?

Quote from: what on December 18, 2016, 11:36:06 am

Half the country lives in a handful of large cities. If the only thing that mattered was the popular vote, there would be no reason for any presidential candidate to give a shit about anyone except the people in those big cities.

How about if the system proposed was used in conjunction with the electoral college? I'm not complaining about the electoral college in any way btw, I think it's a genius idea.

It already is. The people vote a popular vote for their state, which influences which elector can choose to cast their electoral vote. Usually it's for an elector that leans in the direction of the popular vote, but as you can see by this election the electors can really choose who they want to vote for if they're biased, think it's better for the country, getting paid for it, etc.