2016 Ranked Voting Poll 2.0

[Tombs]

Especially OUR system. One great tragedy of the two party system is that it assures that third parties will always have fringe candidates.

Ranked-order voting isn't perfect, as I pointed out in my novella. Also, with the current system it's certainly easier to pick just one of two main presidential candidates. But I just want something that fixes the two parties' hold on American politics. I think that's kinda what makes the elites always win. And they'd probably still win with ROV. Big money candidates will probably always have a big advantage over others. But giving other candidates a more equal chance to be heard is a lot better than what we have now.

I think it'd be interesting to test a system where you vote only on the issues, one by one, and a candidate is automatically selected to represent those issues. If they fail to at least ATTEMPT to implement them, seriously, they get automatically impeached and sent to prison for life.

No campaigning required, no money required. Only debate over the issues, not the individuals.

But hey, I guess elections are more about making the next American idol rather than the issues, as I repeatedly see people supporting candidates who are diametrically opposed to their ideals and philosophy.

 

[BugI02]

There are only two ways to do it: Outlaw campaign spending altogether, which would allow the various media outlets to select our winners or have a government fund in which if I threw my hat in the ring, I would get as much money as Bush or Clinton, all paid out of the same socialized pot.

Or perhaps deduct personal or corporate money spent on politics from deductions for business expenses or other tax deductions under the theory that if you can afford to meddle in politics you can afford to pay the full tax burden? Nope, social engineering via rules of taxation is always a field experiment in the law of unintended consequences

 

[jamil]

There are only two ways to do it: Outlaw campaign spending altogether, which would allow the various media outlets to select our winners or have a government fund in which if I threw my hat in the ring, I would get as much money as Bush or Clinton, all paid out of the same socialized pot.

See why INGO would not approve?

Option 1 would be a non-starter. Option 2 may be doable if done right. I don't look at it as "socialized" in the way that it sounds, any more than it is socialism to pay the president a salary. Not that that's the same thing.

I'll admit that I haven't really thought it out more than superficially. And after thinking it out I might abandon the idea. But at a glance it seems like it might be workable and solve some problems that give cronies more say than they should have.

I think it'd be interesting to test a system where you vote only on the issues, one by one, and a candidate is automatically selected to represent those issues. If they fail to at least ATTEMPT to implement them, seriously, they get automatically impeached and sent to prison for life.

No campaigning required, no money required. Only debate over the issues, not the individuals.

But hey, I guess elections are more about making the next American idol rather than the issues, as I repeatedly see people supporting candidates who are diametrically opposed to their ideals and philosophy.

I don't know about that. I mean that's kinda sorta how California works except they do vote for the people to implement their referendums. It's a form of direct democracy where the whims of the 50% + 1 rule over the 50% -1.

 

[Tombs]

I don't know about that. I mean that's kinda sorta how California works except they do vote for the people to implement their referendums. It's a form of direct democracy where the whims of the 50% + 1 rule over the 50% -1.

Kinda, sorta?

As long as the constitution is strictly adhered to, I don't really see the issue.

Could require a threshold for votes of 2/3rds.

 

[gotguns]

Cruz
Carson
Rubio
Fiorina
Bush
Christie
Trump
Kasich
Sanders
Clinton

I wouldn't vote for either democrats/socialists, but I left them there for the sake of your poll. Once it gets past the top 4 it's a toss up until the last 2. Once it gets past NH and SC it will be a three man race more than likely. By the time we get to participate in the primary it is all but decided unfortunately.

 

[jamil]

Cruz
Carson
Rubio
Fiorina
Bush
Christie
Trump
Kasich
Sanders
Clinton

I wouldn't vote for either democrats/socialists, but I left them there for the sake of your poll. Once it gets past the top 4 it's a toss up until the last 2. Once it gets past NH and SC it will be a three man race more than likely. By the time we get to participate in the primary it is all be decided unfortunately.

Really, out of 10 candidates what matters most is probably your top 3. After that it's mostly just your preferred order of outcome. Which losers you want buried deepest.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I get why people have this burning desire to get money out of politics. For one, we get tired of watching their commercials. But seriously, we see it as a rich guy's game. A game where most of us cannot compete. The we see it a large corporations, unions, and the wealthy get an unfair advantage that because of their money and the things it can buy, they get to sway the elections and earn influence with the politicians that get elected. But all of this campaign finance reform and "taking the money out of politics" is just more big government trying to stop (what we see as) immoral behavior. If "the drug war" cannot stop people from using drugs, what makes us think a "war on campaign finance" will work any better? It won't. Money is speech. At least the ability to donate money to your favorite candidate is. And money is like water--you cannot stop it forever. Sooner or later it finds its way to where it wants to go.

I'd suggest (referring back to that thread I posted up a week or so ago) the problem is with us. We don't pay attention to arguments and issues. There's a reason why candidates buy airtime, pay consultants, and whatever the heck else they do with that money--it's what it takes to get our attention. I'm not saying there aren't instances where somebody is corrupt or some guy is trying to buy influence. There certainly is. But if we pay attention and react to those cases, the problems will be correct. But we don't. And we get what we deserve--all the while whining about it.

 

[BugI02]

I get why people have this burning desire to get money out of politics. For one, we get tired of watching their commercials. But seriously, we see it as a rich guy's game. A game where most of us cannot compete. The we see it a large corporations, unions, and the wealthy get an unfair advantage that because of their money and the things it can buy, they get to sway the elections and earn influence with the politicians that get elected. But all of this campaign finance reform and "taking the money out of politics" is just more big government trying to stop (what we see as) immoral behavior. If "the drug war" cannot stop people from using drugs, what makes us think a "war on campaign finance" will work any better? It won't. Money is speech. At least the ability to donate money to your favorite candidate is. And money is like water--you cannot stop it forever. Sooner or later it finds its way to where it wants to go.

I'd suggest (referring back to that thread I posted up a week or so ago) the problem is with us. We don't pay attention to arguments and issues. There's a reason why candidates buy airtime, pay consultants, and whatever the heck else they do with that money--it's what it takes to get our attention. I'm not saying there aren't instances where somebody is corrupt or some guy is trying to buy influence. There certainly is. But if we pay attention and react to those cases, the problems will be correct. But we don't. And we get what we deserve--all the while whining about it.

I submit that you would have a MUCH easier time removing money from politics than removing stupid from the electorate. I agree that in its small form "Money is speech. At least the ability to donate money to your favorite candidate is." If it were possible to make candidates seek LOTS of contributions from LOTS of people it would be best. You would need to have ideas that resonate with a lot of people. It would seem you could move in this direction by seeking to change current law to require super-PACS to disclose their donors and eventually attack and destroy the language that allows super-PACS. As I said I agree with you on 'small money' but more money should not equal more speech. The resonance of your ideas with the populace should be required for them to spread widely, not a multi-million dollar media buy. You solve the problem of personal wealth by requiring a candidate to live within the donation restrictions to his/her own campaign. The personally wealthy would still have an advantage but not as much of one. Then you slow the revolving door of influence, say ban ex-gov't officials from lobbying for 2 or 3 years after their completion of service. You could make some headway but as you say money is a universal solvent

 

[jamil]

I get why people have this burning desire to get money out of politics. For one, we get tired of watching their commercials. But seriously, we see it as a rich guy's game. A game where most of us cannot compete. The we see it a large corporations, unions, and the wealthy get an unfair advantage that because of their money and the things it can buy, they get to sway the elections and earn influence with the politicians that get elected. But all of this campaign finance reform and "taking the money out of politics" is just more big government trying to stop (what we see as) immoral behavior. If "the drug war" cannot stop people from using drugs, what makes us think a "war on campaign finance" will work any better? It won't. Money is speech. At least the ability to donate money to your favorite candidate is. And money is like water--you cannot stop it forever. Sooner or later it finds its way to where it wants to go.

I'd suggest (referring back to that thread I posted up a week or so ago) the problem is with us. We don't pay attention to arguments and issues. There's a reason why candidates buy airtime, pay consultants, and whatever the heck else they do with that money--it's what it takes to get our attention. I'm not saying there aren't instances where somebody is corrupt or some guy is trying to buy influence. There certainly is. But if we pay attention and react to those cases, the problems will be correct. But we don't. And we get what we deserve--all the while whining about it.

There's a lot to unpack here. First, "we get what we deserve" is only true if "we are all in this together". That's collective thinking. The "we" are not the same as one, we are hundreds of millions of individuals, each with our own self-interested goals. The aggregation of which is convenient to think of as monolithic but it isn't. I, individually, can be aware and informed to the extent possible, but I can do little to influence the masses who aren't. I deserve the part of my responsibility that causes the outcome. I don't deserve Hillary Clinton and neither do you. The people who vote such that we get her, THEY deserve her! We're just stuck with her.

A fairer system doesn't have to be "big government". It could be such that the ignorant people who make bad decisions tend to bear the biggest consequences. I don't know what that would look like. But part of the problem is that we are too "collective". It's too easy for the masses to be conned into supporting stupid things. Stupid just doesn't hurt enough anymore. It turns out that spreading natural consequences for individual stupidity across society is collectively destructive. Natural consequences serve as negative feedback which tends to self-regulate stupidity. But the more we dilute the consequences by spreading them out across more people, the less negative feedback there is to regulate the masses of individuals and their impact.

 

[BugI02]

There's a lot to unpack here. First, "we get what we deserve" is only true if "we are all in this together". That's collective thinking. The "we" are not the same as one, we are hundreds of millions of individuals, each with our own self-interested goals. The aggregation of which is convenient to think of as monolithic but it isn't. I, individually, can be aware and informed to the extent possible, but I can do little to influence the masses who aren't. I deserve the part of my responsibility that causes the outcome. I don't deserve Hillary Clinton and neither do you. The people who vote such that we get her, THEY deserve her! We're just stuck with her.

A fairer system doesn't have to be "big government". It could be such that the ignorant people who make bad decisions tend to bear the biggest consequences. I don't know what that would look like. But part of the problem is that we are too "collective". It's too easy for the masses to be conned into supporting stupid things. Stupid just doesn't hurt enough anymore. It turns out that spreading natural consequences for individual stupidity across society is collectively destructive. Natural consequences serve as negative feedback which tends to self-regulate stupidity. But the more we dilute the consequences by spreading them out across more people, the less negative feedback there is to regulate the masses of individuals and their impact.

+1 I always think of the electorate the way I think of huge corporations when I deal with them. Think of each individual as a tiny vector component, influenced by their desire for their next promotion or bonus or better hours etc. Each of them exerts a tiny, near horizon focused pull on the motion of the whole and the motion of the whole is the vector sum of all the little pulls. It helps explain the sometimes surprising direction the summation vector takes. People are almost never focused on the end game/big picture. They are focused on what they want right now

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that the bottom line is that, after reconsidering my last post, there is one and only one way to get money out of politics, which is for the average voter to change his condition of having his head so far up his rear that he can lick his own tonsils and vote based on an informed decision rather than swallowing what is spoonfed to him the loudest and most frequently. Of course, the odds of that actually happening are smaller than my odds of developing godhood and correcting the country by divine fiat.

 

[zippy23]

Cruz
Carson
Trump

 

[tomray3of4]

Rubio
Cruz
Trump
Carson
Fiorina
Bush
Kasich
Christie
Kanye Kardashian
Clinton
Sanders

 

[historian]

I decided that % first place votes is kinda meaningless so I took it out of the spreadsheet and makes it easier to key in the tallies.

Technical question:

I like the concept of Ranked voting. I think we should go with a "NASCAR" model however. Carson and Fiorina are both ranked high, but no one wants to make them their number one pick (for good reason I might add). I think (and this is just me spitballing an idea, not pushing a candidate) we should make them have a "First place" vote to be considered (as NASCAR says you have to have a win to be in the "Chase"). That would put Carson and Fiorina above Christie and below Bush. I think that would present a bit of a better scale, as those candidates seem do be dominating the second-fourth place votes. What do you think?

 

[jamil]

Technical question:

I like the concept of Ranked voting. I think we should go with a "NASCAR" model however. Carson and Fiorina are both ranked high, but no one wants to make them their number one pick (for good reason I might add). I think (and this is just me spitballing an idea, not pushing a candidate) we should make them have a "First place" vote to be considered (as NASCAR says you have to have a win to be in the "Chase"). That would put Carson and Fiorina above Christie and below Bush. I think that would present a bit of a better scale, as those candidates seem do be dominating the second-fourth place votes. What do you think?

I do see the issue. It would be possible for a person who ranks 2nd or 3nd place on most people's ballot to beat the person with the most first place votes, particularly if most voters hate the first place guy. And that's kind of the issue that got me thinking about this in the first place. Trump.

Getting into the technicalities of what you're saying, our little experiment is limited to <30 voters. It's just to test the waters to see how it works, and what are the outcomes. But when scaled to a national election where 100 million people are expected to vote, every candidate will receive at least some 1st place votes. So they would have a win, and then be eligible anyway. So if we required that the person with the most first place votes wins, it's functionally no different from first past the post. And then we would still have Trump ranking very high among a wide field, even though most people don't like him.

The ranked voting is essentially a tally of who has the most head-to-head wins against each other candidate. The one with the most head to head wins tallied from every voter, wins. I think it sounds fairer when said that way. So the Florina people don't like her best. But a lot of people still like her. That dynamic is unrepresented in first past the post. With Trump, you pretty much either love him, or you hate him, and more people hate him, than love him. So why should he be in 2nd place when someone like Fiorina is liked better--or, perhaps it's better said, they dislike her less?

 

[JettaKnight]

Kasich
Bush
Rubio
Fiorina
Cruz
Carson
Christie
Trump
Clinton
Sanders



It's not quite true to the situation - part of "who I want to win the Republican nominee" is determined by how well they do in the general election. When you put everyone together...

 

[historian]

I do see the issue. It would be possible for a person who ranks 2nd or 3nd place on most people's ballot to beat the person with the most first place votes, particularly if most voters hate the first place guy. And that's kind of the issue that got me thinking about this in the first place. Trump.

Getting into the technicalities of what you're saying, our little experiment is limited to <30 voters. It's just to test the waters to see how it works, and what are the outcomes. But when scaled to a national election where 100 million people are expected to vote, every candidate will receive at least some 1st place votes. So they would have a win, and then be eligible anyway. So if we required that the person with the most first place votes wins, it's functionally no different from first past the post. And then we would still have Trump ranking very high among a wide field, even though most people don't like him.

The ranked voting is essentially a tally of who has the most head-to-head wins against each other candidate. The one with the most head to head wins tallied from every voter, wins. I think it sounds fairer when said that way. So the Florina people don't like her best. But a lot of people still like her. That dynamic is unrepresented in first past the post. With Trump, you pretty much either love him, or you hate him, and more people hate him, than love him. So why should he be in 2nd place when someone like Fiorina is liked better--or, perhaps it's better said, they dislike her less?

I guess I'm thinking that if scaled up, maybe in order to be the winner you have to at least have 5% of the first place votes? I'm just worried that a pure ranked voting system will end up with someone no one really wants. First past the post does have some benefits, so a hybrid system where you can get a consensus candidate, but not just someone who isn't disliked. (That sounds fuzzy, but I hope you get my idea)

 

[jamil]

Update:
26 voters:

Candidate	Rank Score	#1st place votes
Ted Cruz	227	12
Rubio	197	6
Ben Carson	186	0
Carly Fiorina	183	1
Donald Trump	157	4
John Kasich	149	2
Jeb Bush	125	1
Chris Christie	99	0
Bernie Sanders	71	0
Hillary Clinton	36	0

 

[jamil]

I guess I'm thinking that if scaled up, maybe in order to be the winner you have to at least have 5% of the first place votes? I'm just worried that a pure ranked voting system will end up with someone no one really wants. First past the post does have some benefits, so a hybrid system where you can get a consensus candidate, but not just someone who isn't disliked. (That sounds fuzzy, but I hope you get my idea)

I know what you're saying, but I would argue that the current system can give someone no one really wants. That's what voting for the least of two evils does. It elects evil. Now, we have a couple of dozen candidates fight each other, separated by party, and then the two left standing duke it out for consensus. But is that consensus a real representation of the electorate's opinion of all the candidates? Not really. Too many times too many people regardless of party are left to choose between two people they didn't really want.

So let's look at this thread as an example. INGO is the universe of voters. By the last tally, if we were doing this the old way, Trump would be in 3rd place among Republicans, followed by John Kasich, and Fiorina would be in 5th place. Then we'd have a general election between Cruz and Sanders since both got the most first place votes for each party. But Sanders came in next to last place when we put all candidates head to head. Why should Sanders be considered above all the other candidates that most voters liked better?

So let's talk about ending up with someone no one really wants. Let's look at the numbers. We'll use the previous example where a higher ranked candidate doesn't have any first place votes. There are 10 candidates in the poll. For simplicity let's group them into 3 tiers, top 3, middle 4, bottom 3.

Trump scores in the top 3 with a respectable 27% of voters. He scores in the middle with 54% of the voters. He scores in the bottom 3 with 19% of the voters. INGO views Trump as a pretty solid middle tier candidate.

Fiorina, by ranked voting is in 4th place, but is actually averages a grouping nearer to the top. She scores in the top 3 with 42% of voters. 50% of voters put her in the middle. But only 8% of voters put her in the bottom 3. She's not the candidate INGO wants, but she's the candidate more of INGO would settle for ahead of Trump.

So do you think that because Trump got more first place votes, that he should be ahead of Fiorina? Even though a lot more people dislike Trump than like him? Because that's really the difference. Our current primary system rewards candidates for favorability but it does not punish them for unfavorability.

 

[historian]

I know what you're saying, but I would argue that the current system can give someone no one really wants. That's what voting for the least of two evils does. It elects evil. Now, we have a couple of dozen candidates fight each other, separated by party, and then the two left standing duke it out for consensus. But is that consensus a real representation of the electorate's opinion of all the candidates? Not really. Too many times too many people regardless of party are left to choose between two people they didn't really want.

So let's look at this thread as an example. INGO is the universe of voters. By the last tally, if we were doing this the old way, Trump would be in 3rd place among Republicans, followed by John Kasich, and Fiorina would be in 5th place. Then we'd have a general election between Cruz and Sanders since both got the most first place votes for each party. But Sanders came in next to last place when we put all candidates head to head. Why should Sanders be considered above all the other candidates that most voters liked better?

So let's talk about ending up with someone no one really wants. Let's look at the numbers. We'll use the previous example where a higher ranked candidate doesn't have any first place votes. There are 10 candidates in the poll. For simplicity let's group them into 3 tiers, top 3, middle 4, bottom 3.

Trump scores in the top 3 with a respectable 27% of voters. He scores in the middle with 54% of the voters. He scores in the bottom 3 with 19% of the voters. INGO views Trump as a pretty solid middle tier candidate.

Fiorina, by ranked voting is in 4th place, but is actually averages a grouping nearer to the top. She scores in the top 3 with 42% of voters. 50% of voters put her in the middle. But only 8% of voters put her in the bottom 3. She's not the candidate INGO wants, but she's the candidate more of INGO would settle for ahead of Trump.

So do you think that because Trump got more first place votes, that he should be ahead of Fiorina? Even though a lot more people dislike Trump than like him? Because that's really the difference. Our current primary system rewards candidates for favorability but it does not punish them for unfavorability.

I'm not arguing for first past the post. But a hybrid system, where you have to get a minimum of 5% of the first place votes to be considered. Using our ingoverse, you would have to have received at least 1.3 first place votes to be counted (at 5%). This way we still used the Ranked voting system, but we add in you have to have at least SOME people want to vote for you. In the ingoverse, we would end up with Teddy as President, followed by Rubio, then Trump. The others would not be eligible as they didn't get the necessary 1.3 votes to be counted. We have the same system, but it prevents a guy that no one (or in this minimum 5% case, not many) wants as their number 1.