I planned to release an article about Ranked Voting Systems, but this is more topical. Changing subjects caused me to miss a week:

Executive Summary:
Dump the Electoral College of the United States of America before it leads to civil war.

This is a topical subject because the Electoral college gave the Presidency to Trump, but as of this writing, Clinton has 1.6 million more popular votes and has a shot at 2 million more popular votes by the end of counting. This is the 5th time this has happened, and every time, this happens, we risk civil war. 1st, to understand the problem, we must understand the history:

Going back to the drafting of the constitution, several suboptimal compromises went into the Constitution. 1 was that when choosing the President, one votes for electors whose numbers are equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President. It does not:

States soon figured that if all of the electors vote alike, candidates would focus on the state because its electors will all go to 1 candidate. This race to the bottom leads to 48 of 50 states having all of the electors of their states voting for the plurality winner of the state. The result is that 30 states are ignored in each election:

¿What do California, the 6 states with 3 electoral votes and the District of Columbia have in common? ¡They are all FlyOverCountry!:

Basically only states where the republicrat and democan are closer than 45% 55% are worth campaigning. Beyond those parameters, they are either out-of-reach or in-the-bag. That means that only 5-10 states are competitive. Because of polling uncertainty, that is dozen-score in practice. The other 30 states are irrelevant and can be safely ignored.

Certainly, a 3-electoral-vote state could be a swing state and become part of the battleground, but so can a large state (in 1960, Texas was a swing state).

The Electoral College makes fraud much easier:

Let us suppose that 1 Politician receives 51% Of the popular vote and another politician receives 48% of the popular vote with 1% of the popular votes going to independents and 3rd parties with 200 million presidential ballots cast. The candidate with 51% carries 27 states and the District of Columbia. In the Electoral college it is 323 to 215 in favor of the 51%.

The looser notices that in California, it is very close (the winner wins California by only a few hundred votes). The looser pays 1 thousand registered voters who did not plan to vote 1 thousand dollars to vote for him and confirm the vote by taking a selfy with the completed ballot —— ¡this is why BallotSelfies should be illegal, as they are in many places! The Looser now caries California and wins the Electoral College 270 to 268.

¡The Cheater just used the Electoral College as an huge ForceMultiplier!:

It would take changing 3 million popular votes under that scenario to achieve the same effect without the Electoral College. ¡That is a 3-thousand-to-1 multiplier!

This brings us to how the Electoral College could lead to civil war:

Let us suppose that it gets out that the cheater cheated, but one does not have enough evidence to disqualify the cheater. The candidate receiving 51% of the popular vote, carrying 26 states and the District of Columbia —— ¡I should have carried 27 states, but the cheater stole California! —— and missing a majority of the Electoral College by only 2 Electoral votes —— ¡should have won the Electoral College by 54 votes but the cheater stole California! —— refuses to concede. People start rallying to the banner of their preferred candidate. The country plunges into a long bloody civil war.

5 times in US-History, the Electoral College chose a President other than the popular vote. The only thing which saved the country from civil war is that the candidate with the most popular votes took 1 for the team and conceded to the winner of the electoral college. We have no guarantee that this will happen in the future.

5646253
Two major issues:
1. If people are angry enough about who won that they would refuse to accept the electoral vote, then there is no reason to believe that they would have accepted it if the same person had won the popular vote. Civil war is going to come from attitudes of a population that are much more deeply embedded than ‘hey, the electoral college and popular vote disagreed!’

2. With a lack of alternatives, we must assume you mean to suggest that we go by national popular vote, instead. Why, then, did you mention the lack of attention many states are given in the current election system? Because a national popular vote would be just as bad, marginalizing all of the less populous states in favor of Florida, New York, Texas and California. In short:

Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President. It does not:

This is false. The electoral college does, indeed, increase the influence of smaller states on the presidential election. Your explanation for why it doesn't confuses individual influence with regional influence. An individual voting Democrat in South Dakota isn't going to have an influence on the election, but the overwhelmingly Republican state of South Dakota absolutely does have an influence in the election.

It isn't enough to point out flaws in a system. You have to present another option that would work better.

5646637

> "1. If people are angry enough about who won that they would refuse to accept the electoral vote, then there is no reason to believe that they would have accepted it if the same person had won the popular vote. Civil war is going to come from attitudes of a population that are much more deeply embedded than ‘hey, the electoral college and popular vote disagreed!’"

Let me quote Robert Bristow-Johnson:

> "The reason that the Electoral College should be ditched is that Either the E.C. is ineffective (i.e. the E.C. vote agrees with the popular vote), or when the E.C. **is** effective, it **never** brings legitimacy to the election. ?Only assholes are saying now "Thank God for the Electoral College that saved our nation from the decision of the majority of its voters.". ?When the E.C. is effective (i.e. it negates and nullifies the popular vote), it *never* makes the election more legitimate. ?It *always* makes it less legit. ?That's the real reason."

We would have 2 candidates with a claim for the Presidency; one candidate would have a popular claim and allegations that the other would have the Electoral College. The towndrunk who received 1 writein vote from himself is not likely to get the masses to rally to his banner because most will not feel that he deserves the Presidency. Someone receiving 51% of the vote is likely to have many supporters feeling that the candidate is the rightful president. Many civil wars have started in the past when 2 or more claimants to the thrown come forward with plausible arguments supporting theirs claims to the thrown.

> "2. With a lack of alternatives, we must assume you mean to suggest that we go by national popular vote, instead. Why, then, did you mention the lack of attention many states are given in the current election system?"

The point is that one of the lies of the Electoral College is that it gets Presidential Candidates to give attention to small states. Presidential candidates only care about swing states The point is that under direct election or the electoral college, candidates only care about states if they have something to offer the candidate.

[qote]

> " > 'Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President. It does not:'"

> "This is false. The electoral college does, indeed, increase the influence of smaller states on the presidential election."

Yes, Wyoming voters receive almost 4 votes for each Californian, but ¿what does not mean in practice?:

Wyoming is too red for republicans to loose or democrats to steal. Wyoming might as well not exist as far as the candidates are concerned.

> "It isn't enough to point out flaws in a system. You have to present another option that would work better."

I cut that because it is getting long, but the InterstateCompact seems most promising.

5646637

Specific response to your comments.

5646983

I watched that as pasrt of my research. I also read many articles both pro and con. This 1 is interesting for its lack of self-awareness:

Ignore the Mob—Long Live the Electoral College
——
David Harsany

The argument is incoherent, but I would summarize it as the electoral college keeps Clinton out of the Whitehouse, so therefore it is a good thing That is not the funny part though:

David Harsanyi, who is a Libertarian, is totally oblivious to the fact that the Electoral College makes voting for the Libertarian for President stupid. As long as we continue to use Plurality and the Electoral College, Libertarians cannot win the Presidency. ¿What happens if we use a better voting system like Approval and keep the Electoral College:

Because 48 states give all of their Electoral Votes to 1 candidate, even with Approval, it would be hard for a Libertarian to win the Electoral College. It would take a better voting system like Approval and abolishing the Electoral College for the popular vote, which is not fictious, for Libertarians to win the Presidency.

¡What a complete lack of self-awareness!

5646983
I've seen it before, I watched it again. I'm not seeing how it responds to anything I said.

5646975

Many civil wars have started in the past when 2 or more claimants to the thrown come forward with plausible arguments supporting theirs claims to the thrown.

I would contest that is an incorrect way look look at such events. More properly, many civil wars have started when two or more people wanted to be in charge, and so came up with plausible arguments to support their claims to rule. If one plausible argument isn't available, they'll just go find another one.

The point is that one of the lies of the Electoral College is that it gets Presidential Candidates to give attention to small states.

And my point is that this point is pointless if you don't present an alternative which doesn't fall for the same flaw.

Wyoming is too red for republicans to loose or democrats to steal. Wyoming might as well not exist as far as the candidates are concerned.

If Wyoming stopped existing, the balance of national elections would shift toward the Democrats. I tried to say this before, but you seem to have missed it; there's a difference between a candidate ignoring the state, and the state's votes not mattering. Just because its influence is always in a certain direction, does not negate that it has influence.

I cut that because it is getting long, but the InterstateCompact seems most promising.

That isn't a better voting method, that's just a way to change the nation to a direct popular vote, which, again, has the same problems you're complaining the electoral college has.

for Libertarians to win the Presidency.

I guarantee that a national popular vote would not put a Libertarian in the Presidency. There aren't that many Libertarians.

5648279

> " > 'I cut that because it is getting long, but the InterstateCompact seems most promising.'"

> "That isn't a better voting method, that's just a way to change the nation to a direct popular vote, which, again, has the same problems you're complaining the electoral college has.

Now:

* Dump the Electoral College (InterState Compact).
* Switch to Approval Voting (it works on all voting equipment used in the USA and is CloneImmune (not subject to DuVerger's Law; so now, allows 3rd parties and independents win)).

Later:

* Next time we upgrade our voting equipment, buy optical scanners and use PaperBallots which are human/machine-readable and use ScoreVoting (Approval Voting with the ability to distinguish between near clones).

5649273

Now:
* Dump the Electoral College (InterState Compact).
* Switch to Approval Voting (it works on all voting equipment used in the USA and is CloneImmune (not subject to DuVerger's Law; so now, allows 3rd parties and independents win)).

The Interstate compact is not meant to ‘dump the electoral college’. It is meant to switch the voting process to a direct popular vote by piggy-backing off of the electoral college. Approval voting (besides also not fixing the issues you complained about) is not currently on the table in any serious manner, so why you put it under the ‘now’ header is beyond me.

5649478

> "The Interstate compact is not meant to ‘dump the electoral college’. It is meant to switch the voting process to a direct popular vote by piggy-backing off of the electoral college."

The effect is the same. You are being pædantic with making a distinction without a difference —— ¡the InterState Compact makes the Electoral College irrelevant!

> "Approval voting (besides also not fixing the issues you complained about) is not currently on the table in any serious manner, so why you put it under the ‘now’ header is beyond me."

Approval Voting does solve the problem of vote-splitting; so now, it is not susceptible to DuVerger's Law because it is clone-immune. The false-flaggers of airVote take all of the oxygen out of the room with their cure to DuVerger's Law which does not cure DuVerger's Law which only lets republicrats and democan win because they are the most established parties and in the elimination-chain, so votes gravitate to them (Australia has used IRV for e century and almost never elects 3rd parties and independents).

Just eliminate the OverVote Rule. It lets 3rd parties and independents win. Here is how a filled ballot would look:

[ ] Trump R Clinton D
[ ] Johnson L Stein G

Just dump the overvote rule and count all of the ballots.

5650329

¡the InterState Compact makes the Electoral College irrelevant!

But it does not get rid of it. It's still there, and could very well change its mind again and vote in a different way.

Approval Voting does solve the problem of vote-splitting; so now, it is not susceptible to DuVerger's Law because it is clone-immune.
…
Just eliminate the OverVote Rule. It lets 3rd parties and independents win. Here is how a filled ballot would look:
[ ] Trump R Clinton D
[ ] Johnson L Stein G
Just dump the overvote rule and count all of the ballots.

First off (and least importantly), I'm going to need to see some evidence that, as you claim, the voting booths in my district can be converted to this system easily.
Secondly, (and of middling importance), Clinton or Trump would have still won under that system. Johnson and Stein would have received a respectable running, but nowhere near the major candidates. An aesthetic difference at best.
Third, (and of utmost importance, as it is the point of my previous post), approval voting is not currently on the table in any serious manner. You listed it under the header of ‘Now’ alongside the Interstate Compact, but unlike the Interstate Compact, which is actually happening, there is no serious effort right now to put approval voting in place.
Fourth, (and back to middling importance), your claim that approval voting is not susceptible to DuVerger's Law is a half-truth (also known as a politically convenient lie). It does not discourage the votes of minority candidates, but it still requires a very high margin to win, which means a minority candidate will still not win.

(Have I told you before that your intentional violation of English language conventions hurts my eyes? I think I have. Just wanted to remind you.)

5650513

> " > '¡the InterState Compact makes the Electoral College irrelevant!'"

> "But it does not get rid of it. It's still there, and could very well change its mind again and vote in a different way."Amending the Constitution is not on the table now. We go with the InterState Compact dow and hopefully amend the Constitution later.

> " > 'Approval Voting does solve the problem of vote-splitting; so now, it is not susceptible to DuVerger's Law because it is clone-immune.'"

> " > ' …'"

> " > 'Just eliminate the OverVote Rule. It lets 3rd parties and independents win. Here is how a filled ballot would look:'"

[ ] Trump R Clinton D
[ ] Johnson L Stein G

> " > 'Just dump the overvote rule and count all of the ballots.'"

> "First off (and least importantly), I'm going to need to see some evidence that, as you claim, the voting booths in my district can be converted to this system easily."

I need specifics. I know of not voting equipment in the USA which cannot be modified to handle Approval, but your equipment could be the 1st. Please describe it.

> "Secondly, (and of middling importance), Clinton or Trump would have still won under that system. Johnson and Stein would have received a respectable running, but nowhere near the major candidates. An aesthetic difference at best.

Yes, this time:

Initially, voters used to causing the greater evil to win by voting 3rd party and independent would not approve much. As they learn that approving does not split the vote, approving increases. Serious 3rd parties and independents also will start cleaning house to make themselves more appealing to mainstream voters:

Since only nutters vote 3rd parties and independents, serious 3rd parties and independents try to appeal to nutters. As an example, Stein pandered to AntiVaccers and AntGMOers. S serious 3rd parties and independents attract mainstream voters, the serious 3rd parties and independents will drop the nutters. Of course most 3rd parties and independents are by-nutters-for-nutters, but thus is life.

After a few iterations, when elections lean left, the Green and Democrats will be equally likely to win. When things lean right, the Libertarians and Republicans will be equally likely to win. At this point, it will be rational to stop approving the republicrats and democans. he Democratic Party will wither to noting; while, the Republican Part will shrink to a dominionist party like Dæsh except christian instead of muslim winning someteen percent of the vote.

> "Third, (and of utmost importance, as it is the point of my previous post), approval voting is not currently on the table in any serious manner. You listed it under the header of ‘Now’ alongside the Interstate Compact, but unlike the Interstate Compact, which is actually happening, there is no serious effort right now to put approval voting in place."

All we have to do is remove the overvote rule. The problem is FairVote:

Whenever we push for Approval Voting, Robert Richie parachutes in with hundred of thousands of dollars and full-time workers (those resources have to come somewhither, which is why electoral mathematicians suspect that FairVote is a falseflag of either the democans or republicrats for blocking real reform). Every household in the municipality gets a mailing containing a full-color brochure selling IRV as a system which lets independents and 3rd parties win. True reformers with budgets of less than 1 KiloDollar and single-digit numbers of part-time volunteers simply cannot compete.

After spending hundred of thousands of dollars on new voting equipment (IRV uses ranked ballots), the voters discover that, because they hedge their bets by putting the republicrats and democans in their rankings, the votes flow to the republicrats and democans so they continue electing republicrats and democans. ¡So much for not having to choose between a douche and a turdsandwich! The Mathematician Lewis Carroll showed in the mid-19th century that IRV is subject to DuVerger's Law.

I have had run-ins with FairVote. In mine humble opinion, it is fraudulent and mendacious. I best not give you mine opinion of the leader of FairVote Robert Richie

> "Fourth, (and back to middling importance), your claim that approval voting is not susceptible to DuVerger's Law is a half-truth (also known as a politically convenient lie). It does not discourage the votes of minority candidates, but it still requires a very high margin to win, which means a minority candidate will still not win."

I laid out the iterative process over several elections required for independents and 3rd parties to win in my response to "Secondly". No voting system other than sortition (random candidate) or random ballot would give us President Stein or President Johnson in 2016. What Approval Voting would do is prevent Fading (Independents and 3rd Parties loose most of their support between October 1st and ElectionDay because voters realise that voting 3rd Party and Independent will cause the worst candidate to win). and prevent votesplitting. Over multiple elections more voters approve independents and 3rd parties until they are just as likely to win as republicrats and democans. At that point, voters feel safe in not approving republicrats and democans.

5651167

Initially, voters used to causing the greater evil to win by voting 3rd party and independent would not approve much.
…
while, the Republican Part will shrink to a dominionist party like Dæsh except christian instead of muslim winning someteen percent of the vote.

Do you have a crystal ball? Because you get awfully specific about your predictions of human behavior. You've run afoul of a rule of thumb: When someone starts talking as if they know the future, their conclusions are probably more wishful thinking than reality. It's one thing to speculate on who would have won the election given one or two variable changes; we know most of the information already. But to declare with any confidence what will happen eight years down the road is, dare I say, intellectually dishonest. Human society just doesn't lend itself to predictions like that; it's inherently chaotic.

Whenever we push for Approval Voting, Robert Richie parachutes in with hundred of thousands of dollars and full-time workers (those resources have to come somewhither, which is why electoral mathematicians suspect that FairVote is a falseflag of either the democans or republicrats for blocking real reform).

1. By ‘electoral mathematicians’, do you mean you? Or can you provide sources of other credible entities accusing FairVote of such things?
2. You do realize that the Interstate Compact that you just advocated for is championed by FairVote, right? How does that fit in with the conspiracy theory? I'll wait for your ad-hoc explanation, at which point I'll point out you appear to be using the ad-hoc fallacy to defend your position against this group. Or perhaps I'll mention that now and see how your behavior changes.
3. And who is this ‘we’ you speak of who are pushing for approval voting? Because if there isn't any group of non-negligible size doing this, then there doesn't need to be a false-flag attack to dismantle the movement, because there isn't anything to dismantle.

True reformers with budgets of less than 1 KiloDollar and single-digit numbers of part-time volunteers simply cannot compete.

Ah, so you answer my third question. See the explanation following it for why your proposal that FairVote is malicious is ridiculous. It isn't their fault FairVote gets more attention than your proposal any more than it's the fault of the other jockeys for passing you when you try to race on a legless horse.

After spending hundred of thousands of dollars on new voting equipment (IRV uses ranked ballots), the voters discover that, because they hedge their bets by putting the republicrats and democans in their rankings, the votes flow to the republicrats and democans so they continue electing republicrats and democans.

So, exactly how you described the initial elections after putting approval voting into place. And why would this not follow the same trend of people slowly realizing that there's more support for their chosen third-party than they realized, leading to more and more people abandoning their less-of-two-evils party entirely?

The Mathematician Lewis Carroll showed in the mid-19th century that IRV is subject to DuVerger's Law.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, so is approval voting. But apparently that doesn't matter, because it disagrees with your conclusion.

I have had run-ins with FairVote. In mine humble opinion, it is fraudulent and mendacious. I best not give you mine opinion of the leader of FairVote Robert Richie

So your hatred of this group is personal, then. It doesn't surprise me; your reasoning about them is clearly more emotional than rational.
And I'm pretty sure you already gave your opinion of him.

I laid out the iterative process over several elections required for independents and 3rd parties to win in my response to "Secondly". No voting system other than sortition (random candidate) or random ballot would give us President Stein or President Johnson in 2016. What Approval Voting would do is prevent Fading (Independents and 3rd Parties loose most of their support between October 1st and ElectionDay because voters realise that voting 3rd Party and Independent will cause the worst candidate to win). and prevent votesplitting. Over multiple elections more voters approve independents and 3rd parties until they are just as likely to win as republicrats and democans. At that point, voters feel safe in not approving republicrats and democans.

Wherein you:
1. Respond to a sentence about approval voting being subject to DuVerger's Law with an obfuscating explanation of other things approval voting does, which was not the topic of my statement.
2. Fail to realize that a similar effect of more and more people voting third party would happen with IRV.

5651616

> "Do you have a crystal ball? Because you get awfully specific about your predictions of human behavior."

No. I just figure that the Green Party is everything the Democratic Party should be but is not and the Libertarian Party is everything the Reublican Party should be but is not. The Democrats would all become Greens; while the Republicans would all become Libertarians except the Dominionists.

> " > 'Whenever we push for Approval Voting, Robert Richie parachutes in with hundred of thousands of dollars and full-time workers (those resources have to come somewhither, which is why electoral mathematicians suspect that FairVote is a falseflag of either the democans or republicrats for blocking real reform).'"

> "1. By ‘electoral mathematicians’, do you mean you? Or can you provide sources of other credible entities accusing FairVote of such things?"

Just check out the mailing lists < ApprovalVoting@yahoogroups.com >, < election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >, and < RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com > agree.

> "2. You do realize that the Interstate Compact that you just advocated for is championed by FairVote, right? How does that fit in with the conspiracy theory? I'll wait for your ad-hoc explanation, at which point I'll point out you appear to be using the ad-hoc fallacy to defend your position against this group. Or perhaps I'll mention that now and see how your behavior changes.

If we end up using IRV, it will still be republicrats and democans, so Interstate gives FairVote credibility without hurting FairVote if it passes.

> "3. And who is this ‘we’ you speak of who are pushing for approval voting? Because if there isn't any group of non-negligible size doing this, then there doesn't need to be a false-flag attack to dismantle the movement, because there isn't anything to dismantle."

The signers of Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts. Here is the text:

Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Contents
Introduction - It is time to change our voting system.
Unfairness of plurality voting - Plurality voting is a bad method that is used far too often.
Better ballots - With better information from the voters, we can elect better winners.
Fairer counting methods - Together we endorse four voting methods that would give more-democratic results: approval voting, Condorcet voting, majority judgment, and range voting.

Additional considerations
Proportional representation - Legislatures should represent all the voters, not just a bare majority.
Using the fairer methods in organizations - Private organizations are a great place to start voting reform.
Multiple rounds of voting - Good voting methods can reduce the need for primaries and runoffs, or give even-better results when combined with such extra rounds.
Separate reforms - Reforming the voting system helps with other democratic reforms.
Benefits for all - Voting reform is truly a win/win solution that will help all political groups.
Taking action - Here is what you can do to help reform voting methods.

Introduction
It is time to change our voting system.

We, the undersigned election-method experts and enthusiasts from around the world, unanimously denounce the use of plurality voting in elections in which there are more than two candidates. In this declaration we offer several ready-to-adopt replacement election methods that we agree will reliably produce much fairer results.

We agree that there are no significant political or economic risks associated with adopting the election methods recommended here. In fact, we believe that improving the fairness of election results will produce substantial political and economic benefits.

We are confident that any of the systems we propose will bring at least the following direct benefits:
Dramatically increased voter turnout because voters will have meaningful choices
Reduced voter frustration
Improved voice for significant minorities (although they still cannot out-vote the majority)
Improved understanding of what the majority of voters really want

Furthermore, we believe that the indirect benefits of better government could be enourmous, just as democracies tend to be more prosperous than monarchies.

Unfairness of plurality voting
Plurality voting is a bad method that is used far too often.

We use the term "plurality" voting to refer to the commonly used counting method in which each voter marks only a single choice on the ballot, the number of marks for each candidate are counted, and the candidate with the most marks is regarded as the winner. In some nations this method is called "First Past The Post" (and abbreviated FPTP or FPP).

Although plurality voting produces fair results when there are only two candidates, the results are often dramatically unfair when this method is used in elections with three or more candidates.

"Vote splitting" is a key weakness of plurality voting, so it is worth understanding. Vote splitting refers to similar candidates each receiving fewer votes compared to a single opposition candidate, in situations where either similar candidate alone would win over the opposition candidate. It accounts for why, in most democracies, each political party offers a single candidate for each election. If a political party offers two candidates, both of those candidates are likely to lose to a party that offers only one candidate. This happens because that party's voters split their votes between the two candidates, while the winning party concentrates all of their voters' votes on a single candidate. In other words, plurality-based elections often result in the wrong candidate winning.

If voters try to compensate by only voting for either of the two clearly popular choices, the typical result is an entrenched two-party system. This narrows the scope of debate and reduces voter choice. With fewer choices it becomes easier for incumbents to become complacent and even corrupt.

In spite of its well-known weaknesses, plurality voting is far too widely used, especially in the English-speaking world. Although it is often hard to measure the harm done by plurality voting, we believe that it is significant.

Better ballots

With better information from the voters, we can elect better winners.
Unanimously we agree that the kind of ballot used in plurality voting — which in this declaration is called a "single-mark” ballot — is not appropriate in governmental elections. Its deficiency is that it does not collect enough preference information from the voters in order to always correctly identify the most popular candidate when there are more than two candidates.

There are three kinds of ballots that collect enough preference information to always, or almost always, correctly identify the most popular candidate. The names and descriptions of these ballot types are, in alphabetical order:
Approval ballot, on which a voter marks each candidate who the voter approves as an acceptable choice, and leaves unmarked the candidates who are not acceptable

Ranked ballot (or “1-2-3 ballot”), on which a voter indicates a first choice, and optionally indicates a second choice, and optionally indicates additional choices at lower preference levels

Score ballot, on which a voter assigns a number or grade for each candidate. The most familiar versions of such voting are to rate something with 1 to 5 stars, or rate a choice with a number from 1 to 10, or to rate each choice at a named grade (such as "excellent", "good", "fair", "poor", or "reject"), but any range of numbers or grades can be used.

Why don’t more people understand the unfairness of plurality voting? Single-mark ballots do not collect enough information to reveal the actual preferences of voters in elections that have three or more reasonably popular candidates. This lack of full preference information makes it difficult for anyone to produce clear proof, or even evidence, of unfair election results.

Adopting any of the three better ballot types would provide the information that is needed for fair results. In addition, comparing the fair results against who would have won if plurality voting had been used will quickly reveal the dramatic unfairness of plurality voting.

Fairer counting methods
Together we endorse four voting methods that would give more-democratic results.

These three better ballot types can be counted in different ways to produce different results. We, the undersigned election-method experts and enthusiasts, have both developed and analyzed many counting methods, and we now agree there are several counting methods that are worth adopting in governmental elections.

Here, in alphabetical order, are four counting methods that we agree would produce significantly better results compared to plurality voting, along with the principal advantage claimed by the advocates of each method:
Approval voting, which uses approval ballots and identifies the candidate with the most approval marks as the winner.

Advantage: It is the simplest election method to collect preferences (either on ballots or with a show of hands) and the simplest method (besides plurality) to count and explain. Its simplicity makes it a good first step toward any of the other methods.
Any of the Condorcet methods, which use ranked ballots, and which use "pairwise counting" to count how many voters prefer each candidate compared to each other candidate, and which identify as the "Condorcet winner" the candidate who is pairwise preferred over each and every other candidate. In a few elections there is no Condorcet winner, and different Condorcet methods use different rules to resolve such cases, although even then the results are often the same. Some good Condorcet methods are: Condorcet-Approval, Condorcet-IRV, Condorcet-Kemeny, and Condorcet-Schulze. (The word Condorcet is a French name that is pronounced "kon-dor-say".)

Advantage: Condorcet methods provide what many people see as the fairest results in the common cases where there is a Condorcet winner.
Majority judgment, which uses score ballots to collect the fullest preference information, and elects the candidate who gets the best score from half or more of the voters. More specifically, the best median score wins. This system is a form of Bucklin voting, which is a general class of methods that has been used for city elections in both 18th-century Switzerland and the 20th-century United States.

Advantage: Majority Judgment counts ballots in a way that reduces the incentives for strategic voting, so it is arguably the best system for finding out how the voters feel about each candidate on an absolute scale, not just as better or worse than other candidates.
Range voting (also known as score voting), which also uses score ballots, and adds together the scores assigned to each candidate, and identifies the winner as the candidate who receives the highest total score.

Advantage: Range voting comes closest to the mathematically-defined "best" overall results for voter satisfaction if voters vote sincerely. It gives the same reasonable results as Approval voting if every voter votes strategically.

There is another counting method that is supported by some, but not most, of the undersigned election-method experts. It is called "instant-runoff voting" (or "IRV" or "the alternative vote"), and it uses ranked ballots. The counting method begins by considering each voter's highest-ranked choice, and eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes, and then shifting the affected ballots to the next-most preferred candidate, and repeating this process until a candidate receives a majority of votes. The main advantage of instant-runoff counting is that it is easy for many people to understand, especially because the counting process is similar to the familiar process of runoff elections.

Advocates of instant-runoff counting point out that IRV has an advantageous voting characteristic that is missing from any of our supported counting methods. This characteristic (which is called “Later No Harm”) is that it does not give any advantage to voters who use a voting strategy of not ranking all the candidates. Although some of us agree that “Later No Harm” is a desirable characteristic, none of us think that it is necessary, and the evidence shows that voters would get good results from the systems endorsed here which lack it.

Instant-runoff voting is used in some governmental elections throughout the world, and most of us agree that usually the results are an improvement over plurality voting. Yet significantly some of the places that have adopted instant-runoff voting have later rejected the method and returned to plurality voting. In the United States, these places include Aspen, Colorado and Burlington, Vermont. The rejections occurred because the official IRV winner was not the same as the Condorcet winner, so a majority felt the method had given the wrong result.

Most of us agree that the two advantages of IRV do not outweigh its major disadvantage, which is that it fails to correctly identify the most popular candidate in many elections.

Looking into the future, there may be additional, newly developed methods that we support in the future, but they require further analysis. One such election method that shows promise is Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval (SODA) voting, which combines approval voting with vote delegation to make the voter’s task as simple as possible.

Why do we not support a single "best" election method? Different election-method experts place different degrees of importance on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each method. In the list of signatures some of us indicate which voting method we most-strongly prefer. It bears repeating, though, that despite our disagreements, we would not hesitate to support any of these methods over plurality voting.

The following Wikipedia articles provide detailed descriptions and characteristics of our supported methods:
Approval voting
Condorcet method
Majority Judgment
Range voting

Some of us signing this statement edit these Wikipedia articles to keep them accurate and unbiased. Also, many of us participate in the "Election-Methods" forum at www.electorama.com/em, and we would be happy to answer your questions about any of these methods.
Additional considerations
Proportional representation
Legislatures should represent all the voters, not just a bare majority.

So far, all of the above recommendations apply to identifying a single winner, so they are known as "single-winner" election methods. These single-winner methods are ideally suited for electing mayors and governors. When used in non-governmental organizations, these single-winner methods are ideally suited for electing a president, treasurer, and secretary.

Different considerations apply if an election fills a legislative seat, such as a seat in a legislature, congress, or parliament. In Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the typical method for filling a legislative seat is to define a district or riding in which plurality voting is used to elect one person who is expected to represent the citizens in that district or riding.

All of us signing this declaration agree that plurality voting is not acceptable as an election method for filling a single district-based or riding-based legislative seat. All of us would support using any of the single-winner methods endorsed above, as an improvement over using plurality voting to fill a district-based or riding-based legislative seat.

Most of us agree that an even better choice would be to adopt an election method that gives at least somewhat proportional representation to most voters.

The best-known approach, which is used in many countries in Europe and elsewhere, is party-based proportional representation. Such methods ask voters to indicate their favorite political party, and then make adjustments to ensure that the percentage of legislative seats filled by members of each party roughly matches the percentage of voters who support each party. In other words, if 15% of the voters marked the Silver Party as their favorite, then approximately 15% of the parliamentary seats would be filled by Silver Party politicians.

Proportional representation provides a number of advantages that we agree are important, including:
The legislature better reflects the makeup of the population.
It essentially eliminates the effects of "gerrymandering," which is a political manipulation of district or riding boundaries for the purpose of favoring a specific political party or incumbent.
Without proportional representation, gerrymandering and other factors can lead to more than 90% of officeholders being re-elected, and as many as 98% in some cases. These foregone conclusions reduce turnout.
Effective proportional representation ensures representation for almost all voters, rather than just slightly more than half, in that their votes end up helping some representative win.

Almost all of us agree that where proportional representation (PR) is used, the "open-list" versions or the “candidate-centric” versions, not the "closed-list" versions, should be used. We oppose the closed-list versions because they disregard candidate-specific voter preferences, and transfer power to people who are not elected, and who cannot easily be removed from their position of power.

There are many good versions of proportional representation, but we are not yet expressing support for any specific version because the best choice depends on the situation and goals.

Using the fairer methods in organizations
Private organizations are a great place to start voting reform.

These better voting methods are not just useful for public elections. They also can be used to elect a private organization's officers, to elect corporate board members, to make voting-based group decisions, and to elect delegates to political-party conventions. In addition to increasing the fairness of such elections and decisions, these uses will increase the number of people who realize that plurality voting is very unfair, and help them learn how to achieve much fairer results.

Keep in mind that all four of our recommended election methods already have been used to elect officers in non-governmental organizations, and the fairer results have been widely appreciated (except by some incumbents who were not reelected).
Multiple rounds of voting
Good voting methods can reduce the need for primaries and runoffs, or give even-better results when combined with such extra rounds.
Separate reforms

Reforming the voting system helps with other democratic reforms.

Nothing in this statement should be interpreted to imply that we believe that election-method reform is the only area of existing political systems that currently needs reform. In fact, most of us also support other reforms such as broader campaign-finance-reporting rules, increased use of other decision-making aids such as deliberative polling, and clearer ethics rules for officeholders. We believe that the election-method reforms we advocate here would be synergistic with such other reforms, both in terms of easing their adoption and multiplying their beneficial effects.

Benefits for all
Voting reform is truly a win/win solution that will help all political groups.

We, as election-method experts and enthusiasts, have spent the last decade developing online resources about election methods, developing software for the election methods we support, and now we have reached agreement as to which election methods are worth adopting as replacements for plurality voting. Through this declaration we are sharing our recommendations. We also offer to share our deep understanding of election methods with policymakers and politically active citizens of any nation, state, province, municipality, or political party.

Those of us signing this declaration proudly stand at widely separate points on the political spectrum. When we vote, we know that many of us will be strongly supporting opposite sides. And even in discussing voting systems, we have our disagreements. Yet we respect each other’s common interests in wanting to move beyond plurality voting in search of a healthier democracy. In signing this statement, and in supporting a variety of different methods, we are looking beyond narrow, partisan interests. We seek to support the common good. In fact we are unanimous in sincerely believing there are no good reasons to oppose election-method reform.

Politics is often viewed as a “zero-sum game” in which one side can gain only if another side loses. In contrast, we view election-method reform as taking the next step up the ladder of democracy; just as democracy has proven to be much better than dictatorships, higher levels of democracy will help us reach even higher standards of living for almost everyone. We do not pretend to offer a utopia, where conflicts of interest disappear and everyone is a winner. We simply believe that even a political group that loses an election can benefit from healthier dialogue and elected officials who better represent the voters.

Thus, we believe that better election methods will help all political groups: both left and right, both business and labor, both incumbents and upstart campaigners, both centrists and extremists. Even special interests who currently donate large campaign contributions will benefit from a more robust and sustainable economy. And most politicians will appreciate it if we cut the puppet strings that connect them to their biggest campaign contributors. We believe that every political group can benefit in very concrete and specific ways, and we are available to discuss how and why for each case.

Taking action

Here is what you can do to help reform voting methods.

We address this statement to all citizens, and especially to those who are aware of any of the many benefits that election-method reforms will bring. To people in specific situations we offer the following words of encouragement:
If you are a policymaker, you can reduce the negative attacks and the need to constantly fundraise. We strongly urge you to introduce legislation that would adopt one of the election methods we support.
If you are active in a political party that uses plurality voting, you can increase your party’s chances of winning in the main election by nominating more-electable candidates in a way that encourages participation and debate, not unproductive conflict. We strongly urge you to encourage the use of a better voting method to choose your party's candidates and your party's internally elected delegates.
If you feel that “your” political party wants your vote and your money, but doesn’t care about your political priorities, there is a way for your favorite issues to get the attention they deserve. We strongly urge you to tell those who share your political views how the fairer election methods supported in this declaration can help you come together as a force to be reckoned with, while still cooperating with other groups to fight against ideas you consider dangerous.
If you don’t identify with any of the main political parties, there is a way you can start to have real choices at the ballot box. We strongly urge you to learn about one or more of the election methods we support, and then tell others what you have learned.
If you are a member of an organization that elects officers using plurality voting, this is a chance to help your organization run more smoothly. We strongly urge you to advocate using one of the recommended election methods when an election involves more than two candidates.

I started to fix the damage to the formatting but gave up.

> " > 'After spending hundred of thousands of dollars on new voting equipment (IRV uses ranked ballots), the voters discover that, because they hedge their bets by putting the republicrats and democans in their rankings, the votes flow to the republicrats and democans so they continue electing republicrats and democans.'"

> "So, exactly how you described the initial elections after putting approval voting into place. And why would this not follow the same trend of people slowly realizing that there's more support for their chosen third-party than they realized, leading to more and more people abandoning their less-of-two-evils party entirely?"

Evidently, Australia —— ¡after a century! —— is still in the initial stage. One should expect results in less than a decade.

> " > "The Mathematician Lewis Carroll showed in the mid-19th century that IRV is subject to DuVerger's Law.'"

> "And as I pointed out in a previous post, so is approval voting.

No. It is logically self-evident that when approvals for 2 candidates become equal under Approval, the likelihood of them winning becomes equal. Indeed, if you do not concede this fact, our conversation is done; I cannot argue Mathematics with someone rejecting Mathematics.

> " > 'I have had run-ins with FairVote. In mine humble opinion, it is fraudulent and mendacious. I best not give you mine opinion of the leader of FairVote Robert Richie'"

> "So your hatred of this group is personal, then.

If by personal, you mean shared by most signatories of Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts then yes.

> " > 'I laid out the iterative process over several elections required for independents and 3rd parties to win in my response to "Secondly". No voting system other than sortition (random candidate) or random ballot would give us President Stein or President Johnson in 2016. What Approval Voting would do is prevent Fading (Independents and 3rd Parties loose most of their support between October 1st and ElectionDay because voters realise that voting 3rd Party and Independent will cause the worst candidate to win). and prevent votesplitting. Over multiple elections more voters approve independents and 3rd parties until they are just as likely to win as republicrats and democans. At that point, voters feel safe in not approving republicrats and democans.'"

> "Wherein you:"

> "1. Respond to a sentence about approval voting being subject to DuVerger's Law with an obfuscating explanation of other things approval voting does, which was not the topic of my statement."

Stopping fading is the 1st step toward growing to win.

> "2. Fail to realize that a similar effect of more and more people voting third party would happen with IRV."

No. Let us suppose that we are in Australia now:

We have several parties on the left and several parties on the right Some of these parties might be small with no chance of winning like the Fascist Party on the Right and the Communist party on the Left. These small parties hedge their bets by asking their voters to put the big parties in the right and left as alternates. These small parties act as KingMakers as their vote-transfers push one of the big parties over 50%. This is what has happened over the last century.

Approval does not have vote-transfers:

Voters just have to approve for 3rd parties until they are as popular as the big 2 parties. At this point, the 3rd parties will be as likely to win as the 2 parties. Then stop voting for the big 2 parties. Now, the 3rd parties have replaced the 2 parties. ¿Why cannot you understand this?

5652589

No. I just figure that the Green Party is everything the Democratic Party should be but is not and the Libertarian Party is everything the Reublican Party should be but is not.

Then you would be wrong. These four parties have distinctly different values.

Just check out the mailing lists < ApprovalVoting@yahoogroups.com >, < election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com >, and < RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com > agree.

Mailing lists fail to even be a source, because there is no easy way to verify that they say what you say they say. But the operative phrase was ‘credible entities’, which lists of people on Yahoo Groups fails to be.

so Interstate gives FairVote credibility without hurting FairVote if it passes.

As expected, you twist it around so that agreeing with you on something still makes them the enemy.

The signers of Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts.

Wow, that sounds like an important group, let me look them up!
Oh. A mostly informal thing who's main communication appears to be through Google Groups. Given your previous ‘sources’, I'm not surprised. This utterly fails to reach the mark of a “group of non-negligible size” pushing for approval voting.

Here is the text:

Why? I expect it just repeats what you've already said. It makes your post long for no good reason. Just dropping a link would have made more sense.

Evidently, Australia —— ¡after a century! —— is still in the initial stage. One should expect results in less than a decade.

That utterly fails to address the criticism I laid out.

No.

Yes. It appears you have resorted to straight up denial. Skepticism, indeed.

It is logically self-evident that when approvals for 2 candidates become equal under Approval, the likelihood of them winning becomes equal.

Wherein you ignore that third-party candidates are, by definition, not equally approved of.If by personal, you mean shared by most signatories of Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts then yes.No, by personal I mean personal. That you claim to share this feeling with a number of other people doesn't make it any less of a personal grudge.

Stopping fading is the 1st step toward growing to win.

That a party is hypothetically capable of growing to win does not make Duverger's law go away. A third party is hypothetically capable of winning an election as it is run now.

No. Let us suppose that we are in Australia now:
We have several parties on the left and several parties on the right Some of these parties might be small with no chance of winning like the Fascist Party on the Right and the Communist party on the Left. These small parties hedge their bets by asking their voters to put the big parties in the right and left as alternates. These small parties act as KingMakers as their vote-transfers push one of the big parties over 50%. This is what has happened over the last century.

That this particular scenario has played out in Australia does not imply that it will:
1. Last forever.
2. Be repeated in any and every place that adopts IRV.

Voters just have to approve for 3rd parties until they are as popular as the big 2 parties. At this point, the 3rd parties will be as likely to win as the 2 parties. Then stop voting for the big 2 parties. Now, the 3rd parties have replaced the 2 parties. ¿Why cannot you understand this?

I understand it fine. I just realize that it applies just as well to IRV. Why can you not understand that? Yes, there's a kingmaker effect; but what happens when, in one election, the final two parties standing had started out just a few votes ahead of the third and fourth parties? In the next election, people will consider four parties to be potentially competitive, rather than the original two. It's literally the same effect you just described.

5653801

I started to reply, but I am weary of having to format the text by hand. I wish that the forums would format the text for me, but them brain-dead me-too AOLers would ruin the comments like they ruined eMail and UseNet. Let us get back to basics about how these systems work. I shall not explain Plurality because I figure that you understand it:

Approval is simple:

Amy:
59%

Beth:
61%

Cathy:
34%

¡Beth wins!

IRV is multiple rounds of Plurality. If a candidate does not get over 50% of the vote in a round, we eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes and give the votes to the next noneliminated alternates.

Let us suppose that we introduce IRV after Plurality has given us a duopoly. Voters vote their consciousnesses, but hedge their bets by making 1 of the 2 established parties their 1st alternates. The number of 3rd parties and independents pluriferates because voters feel that 3rd parties and independents can win under I RV:

It is a century later. We have candidates from someteen parties (more than a dozen (12) parties but less than a score (20) parties). On the 1st round candidates get from nearly 40% to 1%. The 2 parties from the original duopoly are not the top-2. Since no party has over 50%, we eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes. It is the candidate of the Fascist Party. The voters of the Fascist Party chose the Right-Leaning of the original duopoly as their 1st alternate. This continues with parties on the left transferring votes to the left-leaning party of the original duopoly and parties on the right transferring votes to the candidate of the left-leaning party of the original duopoly.

Although neither party of the old duopoly was in the top-2 on the 1st round, they both quickly enter it. After a few rounds, 1 of them gets over 50% of the vote and wins.

Let us see what Approval does in less than 1 decade:

Initially, voters are reticent to vote 3rd parties and independents because that burned them in the past. After seeing that Approving 3rd parties and independents does not hurt the lesser of 2 evils, the voters approve more independents and 3rd parties. Soon the 3rd parties and independents are just as likely to win as the 2 parties. The voters abandon the 2 parties. This all occurs in less than 1 decade.

5654015

Let us get back to basics about how these systems work.

I never objected to the basics of how these systems work. I objected to flawed statements you made about these systems. ‘Getting back to basics’ sounds very much like admitting you can't address the points I've actually brought up, so choosing instead to ignore them entirely.

I shall not explain Plurality because I figure that you understand it:

I also understand Approval and IRV, but you're explaining those, so…

It is a century later.

*cracks knuckles*

We have candidates from someteen parties (more than a dozen (12) parties but less than a score (20) parties).

Assumption 1.

The 2 parties from the original duopoly are not the top-2.

Assumption 2.

we eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes. It is the candidate of the Fascist Party.

Assumption 3.

The voters of the Fascist Party chose the Right-Leaning of the original duopoly as their 1st alternate.

Assumption 4.

This continues with parties on the left transferring votes to the left-leaning party of the original duopoly and parties on the right transferring votes to the candidate of the left-leaning party of the original duopoly.

Assumption 5.

Although neither party of the old duopoly was in the top-2 on the 1st round, they both quickly enter it. After a few rounds, 1 of them gets over 50% of the vote and wins.

Assumption 6.

And…

Let us see what Approval does in less than 1 decade:
Initially, voters are reticent to vote 3rd parties and independents because that burned them in the past. After seeing that Approving 3rd parties and independents does not hurt the lesser of 2 evils, the voters approve more independents and 3rd parties. Soon the 3rd parties and independents are just as likely to win as the 2 parties. The voters abandon the 2 parties. This all occurs in less than 1 decade.

Assumption 7.

The key to talking in hypotheticals is that you can't make unfounded assumptions about how things will happen. I could make different assumptions than you did and come up with a completely different end result. It's like you mapped out how you can hypothetically do your Thanksgiving drive in 3 hours, but then you use that scenario to claim that there is no possibility that you will hit traffic and take longer. Another comparison would be that you realized that your child's school play could hypothetically be ruined if the three lead actors all got sick, and then you use that scenario to claim that the play will certainly fail. Your reasoning is stupendously flawed.

5654064

Given that the Australian Senate which uses STV has multiple parties and independents; while the Australian House, which has 150 seats, over the last century has been over 98% either the Liberal/National* Party or the Labour Party, IRV seems to not break duopoly. ¿Why implement a way to break duopoly which shows no signs of breaking duopoly? 8 Parties have seats in the Senate, which uses STV, but only 3 parties other than National/Liberal Party and the Labour Party, each with only 1 seat (3 seats between them or 2%). ¿Do you see a pattern? In the Senate, these 8 parties hold 20 of 76 seat (26%)

* Officially, The National Party and the Liberal Parties are separate parties, but are functionally 1 NeoLiberal Party (think Tea Party and Republican Party).

5654392

Given that the Australian Senate which uses STV has multiple parties and independents; while the Australian House, which has 150 seats, over the last century has been over 98% either the Liberal/National* Party or the Labour Party, IRV seems to not break duopoly.

Wherein you ignore all that I have said and continue to use a single example to fallaciously extrapolate to the general. Also where you compare a multiple-winner system with a single-winner system as if that provides useful information. I'm pretty sure that's an invalid comparison. And oh look, you've acknowledged that, apparently, Australia has more than two parties, and that the other parties actually have significant power!

¿Why implement a way to break duopoly which shows no signs of breaking duopoly?

Why extrapolate from a single example to a general case? Why ignore the hypothetical outcomes of the system that you don't like?

* Officially, The National Party and the Liberal Parties are separate parties, but are functionally 1 NeoLiberal Party (think Tea Party and Republican Party).

So, there are really three parties, and people just come up with a way to whittle it down to two because they like the word ‘duopoly’. When I think Tea Party and Republican Party, I think the major conflicts between the two that have clearly indicated the Tea Party is a separate political movement embedded in the Republican party, and should properly be its own thing.

I love how, for the second time in a row, you have refused to acknowledge what I've actually said at all. I want to have a back-and-forth discussion, but it seems you want to just repeat your claims without having to defend them. Why are you running a skeptical group if you don't like skeptical inquiry into your statements?

5655382

I do not know about you, but I consider bthe teabagging birthers and their leader, the oompa loompa with a blond comb-over, as Republicans.

Not only are the Nationals and Liberals interwtwined, their relationship gave birth to the adoption of IRV:

Before I begin, liberal does not mean progressive. We write about NeoLiberalism, in which businesses are free to screw consumers and workers alike. Think the Libertarian Party.

The National and Liberal Parties were near clones. Because of Duverger's Law, they lost to the Labour Party. They pushed for IRV so that they can win. In the 20th Century, the parties lost what little distinction they have. Both the voters and the politicians do not draw a distinction between the Nationals and the Liberals. The only thing keeping them from merging is the jobloss from eliminating redundant jobs. The Liberal/National Coalition is effectively 1 party. Ask an Australian whether or not the National and Liberal Parties function as 1 party or not.

If you do not like how I run this group, I can make you an admin so you can run it better. You just have to make 2 promises:

* I, Badly Drawn Turtle, promise to further Skepticism.
* I, Badly Drawn Turtle, promise to block users only for disrupting the group after giving them warnings —— not for disagreeing with me

The 2nd is very important. a Discord's Advocate keeps us honest. ¿Do you remember that time, I banned you for disagreeing with me? No you do not because I never banned you. I appreciate your disagreeing with me.

If you want the job and make the promises, you can be an admin today. I shall make the thread in the Form welcoming you.

5655746

I do not know about you, but I consider bthe teabagging birthers and their leader, the oompa loompa with a blond comb-over, as Republicans.

Then you have an overly simplistic view of current politics, which ironically is what leads to two-party systems in the first place. The Tea Party and the mainstream Republicans clearly have differents sets of values and goals. Yes, on the classic scale of ‘right to left’, they're both right-wing. But there is more than one dimension to politics. An accurate political scale would be too confusing to be useful.

If you want the job and make the promises, you can be an admin today.

No thank you, I have a horrible fear of responsibility.

The Electoral College exists so bigass rich liberal-filled American States do not have their voices completely drown out the voices of smaller states full of working-class "Racist bigot plebians". That might not seem like something America should have in place, but if you reallt think that, that's why it's there.

Claiming the Electoral College should be abolished is like losing your King in a chess match, then claiming you should be the real winner because you had more pieces left over than your opponent, who beat your ass despite all the cheating bullshit you and your friends were caught pulling in the match and in the months leading up to the match.

It's especially hilarious when you remember that Obama only won thanks to the Electoral College. It's fine when it benefits you, but racist/potentially dangerous when it doesn't, right?

I know this thread's old, but I've had bad experiences with liberals in groups that have "Intelligent-sounding names" in the past, so if I'm going to be banned for knowing how to read and understand Wikileaks and being too smart for CNN or CNN fanboys, or for making said fanboys cry, might as well get it over with. If not, make your "Hurr durr you're stupid for thinking this triggered me" post.
5655746

the oompa loompa with a blond comb-over

Yes, this is maturity. This is liberal maturity. How enlightened. Nothing says intelligent like childish insults, right?

Here's something you should really try to understand: https://pastebin.com/J87NdJPL

The above? That's how the "oompa loompa with a blond comb-over" completely destroyed your candidate. And until you understand why your side lost, your side is going to continue to lose. Bill Nye's "Muh Sex Junk" rap pretty much already secured his 2020 win, as if he didn't already have it in the bag after 100 days of Trump proved to be better for America than 8 years of Obama, but are you really willing to give up 2024?

You appreciate people disagreeing with you, right? You're not going to go Full Liberal and claim I should be banned for disagreeing with you/triggering you/disrespecting you, right? Then please, try to understand me and my position, rather than throwing childish insults at the man that outsmarted you more times than Hillary can count. Show some skepticism for the news that thinks bashing Trump like a 2000-era Ron hater is real news but anything that makes liberals, liberalism, or liberal policies look bad isn't.

5937911

> "The Electoral College exists so bigass rich liberal-filled American States do not have their voices completely drown out the voices of smaller states full of working-class "Racist bigot plebians". That might not seem like something America should have in place, but if you reallt think that, that's why it's there.

Candidates without at least a plurality winning because they happened to have narrow victories in a few small states always leads to cries of illegitimacy and civil strife. That is a fact. If one would show that a candidate would use the electoral college as a force-multiplier (changing less than 1% of the votes in a state with less than 1% of the US-population, thus flipping the electoral college, an effect which would require having to alterover 100 times more votes with a direct election), the civil strife could rise to civil war.

> "It's especially hilarious when you remember that Obama only won thanks to the Electoral College. It's fine when it benefits you, but racist/potentially dangerous when it doesn't, right?"

You are wrong; President Obama received a majority (over 50% of the vote) in both 2008 and 2012 —— ¡not a plurality (a larger share of the vote than other candidates but still less than 50%) or a minority (2nd or further back)!:

2008
52.9%

2012:
51.1%

Reality does not care whether you believe it or not. The facts are what they are. Alternative facts, like alternative medicine, is not true.

The rest of your rant is so incoherent and fact-free and absurd that I do not bother to respond except this:

> "You're not going to go Full Liberal and claim I should be banned for disagreeing with you/triggering you/disrespecting you, right?"

We can always use more Discord's Advocates. As long as you do not attack other users, you are free to stay. Indeed, if you want, you can attack me; I give permission. Yes, you can call me a poopy head, but not any other member. What you can do to any BlogPost or BlogComment by any member is point out factual and logical errors.

5939660 Of course I'm allowed to insult you. You've already insulted me. And "Incoherent"? Really? Congrats on admitting my chess analogy is too hard for you to understand or think about. Takes a big man to admit when he's not big enough for the job.

But really, all insults aside, we really aren't going to get anywhere if you're going to see me solely as some "Discord's Advocate", the ponified version of "Devil's Advocate", someone who doesn't really believe what he's saying but is arguing for the wrong thing to help you practice debating against it, and not as someone that could potentially be right.

We're also not going to get anywhere if you're going to focus on the pieces of my argument you feel ready to attack while ignoring the pieces you'd rather ignore.

And finally, don't claim I like alternative medicine. Don't strawman me by claiming I like alternative medicine. We won't get anywhere if you're going to go right for the strawman technique. I was a liberal, before all that "Whites are evil, blacks are Oppressed(TM), you can't be racist against white people, white people should feel guilty, and bisexual people are Het-Passing(TM) and therefore not gay enough for my LGBTQUIASDFASJ+ Club!" bullshit convinced me to leave and become centrist, and that alternative "This eastern asian chakra cleanser crystal inserted into your ass will promote good fortune and cure cancer and promote peace and love, anyone who spreads science and facts is a racist sexist bigot" bullshit is liberal. You can tell it's liberal because it starts with the assumption and then scrapes the bottom of the barrel for "Facts" to fit the narrative while ignoring everything that damages that narrative.

I could end this post here, but let's give you a little more to work with in your condescending/whiny/childish tone argument reply, shall we?

You think the Electoral College is bad because it served its purpose and made Hillary lose. I think that's pretty dumb. You think the electoral college will cause civil war because butthurt liberals are still salty about losing and they're still claiming it's unfair that their sheer numbers didn't drown out the voice of working-class citizens and racist whites and all those other undesirables. I think that's pretty dumb. And, well gee, if we should get rid of things that could cause civil war, shouldn't the stupidest, most judgemental, petty, childish, narrow-minded pseudointellectual circlejerkers in the liberal party be gotten rid of? After all, they want civil war, and could cause it!

If we're going to ban or remove things because they could potentially start trouble by making the kind of people who start trouble when unhappy feel unhappy, where does it end? I know that answer can be answered by looking at the most recent actions of the liberal party, but this is a debate. So tell me, why should your hurt feelings justify the removal of the electoral college?

5940108

Let us stay on topic. Frankly I was unclear, which is my fault. Mea culpa:

I was unclear about how the Electoral College could lead to civil war:

When the electoral college fails to choose the Candidate with at least a plurality of the votes (came in 1st), those supporting the 1st-place candidate feel cheated. This leads to civil unrest. We can agree on this.

Let us suppose that an election should happen where the polls show that Amy will receive 51% of the vote, Betty will receive 48% of the vote, and all other candidates will receive 1%. The projection for the Electoral College is 280 for Amy and 258 for Betty. It is much closer in the Electoral College because Betty should win a few medium-sized states by less than 1%.

Luckily for Betty, in 1 state with 12 Electoral Votes, she trails Amy by less than 1% and the idiots in that state use InterNetVoting. With a little paid help from MafiaHackers she wins that state (the Electoral College makes fixing elections easier because one need only change about 1% of the votes one would have to change for flipping a direct election). Betty wins with 270 Electoral Votes to 268 for Amy.

This looks fishy to anyone with half a brain. Supporters of Amy feel full rage. Civil strife will not do. ¡It is time for civil war to remove the imposter to the Presidency!

Having a Senate where each state has equal representation was not enough for small states. Small states also had to have a system for choosing the president which leads to civil strife when it works as intended, makes it easier to fix the Presidential Election, and supports of the more popular candidate have reason to believe that the election for president is fixed, can lead to civil war.

The Electoral College is 1 of 3 bombs in the Constitution whch can blowup and lead to civil war:

* Allowing Slavery
* The Electoral College
* Making each slave 3/5ths of a person for apportionment of the House of Representatives

We already had the bomb "Allowing Slavery" go off, but at least it took the bomb "Making each slave 3/5ths of a person for apportionment of the House of Representatives" with it.* The Electoral College is a ticking timebomb waiting to explode.

* The way the bomb "Making each slave 3/5ths of a person for apportionment of the House of Representatives" could have lead to civil war is slave-holding states defeating a bill using those extra seats in the House of Representatives free states want pass. The population of the free states would not believe that it is fair that the slave-holding states won the vote in the House of Representatives using representatives representing people who cannot vote. Luckily, this issue did not lead to civil war.

5940108
I could attempt to explain the numerous ways in which you are wrong, but I'm busy wondering at how you can call someone else childish while sprinkling your sentences with terms like ‘salty’ and ‘butthurt’. Human behavior is fascinating.

5941375
I think you misunderstand the situation at the time of the Constitution. The constitution didn't ‘allow slavery’, because slavery was the norm at the time. What the writers did do is realize that the Northern and Southern states would be at each other's throat the moment people tried to ban slavery; the bombshell was there before the Constitution. The section of the Constitution regarding the slave trade is the only place in the main body of the document to have a time limit (20 years). This was because the writers knew the issue was going to come to a head eventually, but they wanted to delay it long enough for their brand new country to stabilize. You phrase it as if the founders were all fine with slavery and defended it in the Constitution, but in reality they knew it was an issue and made precautions against it destroying the country when it inevitably went off.

5941447

The founding fathers could have stopped the slavetrade, declared that slavery could not expand, and instituted Libero Ventres (freedom of the womb (children of slaves would be bore free)), monetary compensation for freeing slaves along with a little money for getting the freed slaving going as a free person, et cetera, and then watch slavery wither away to nothing.

5941597
No, they couldn't have. If they had attempted to do that, the Southern states would never have joined the union in the first place, and there would have been two separate countries from the beginning, one of which would have had effectively no anti-slavery sentiment to produce a subsequent abolition. As usual, you're thinking with your heart, not your head. What you wish would have happened is not compatible with the reality of what would have actually occurred.

5941626

It is not like a want something disruptive like immediate abolition of slavery. With Libero Ventres, abolishment of the slavetrade, and no expansion of slavery, basically nothing would change in the short term for slaveholders, yet slavery would peacefully die out in 2 generations (in sociology, a generation is 25 years).

5941695

It is not like a want something disruptive like immediate abolition of slavery.
…abolishment of the slavetrade,

You do realize that the Civil War was caused by forbidding international slave trade and restricting the expansion of slavery, right? You just claimed that a more extreme version of what caused the Civil War would have been a peaceful solution to the problem.
I'm… I'm at a loss, here. I knew you had a tendency to overlook things that contradicted your position, but this…

5941783

Slave-holders overreacted to the Election of President Lincoln like the NRA (National Rifle-Association) overreacted to the Election of President Obama; President Lincoln did not want to immediately emancipate the slaves, but only stop expansion of slavery. The histrionics of the Slave-holders lead to secession. Then they followed it up by attacking Fort Sumner, thus starting the American Civil War. ¡Stupid slave-holders! President Lincoln does not want to take away your guns —— ¡oops! —— I mean slaves.

5941802
You failed to present anything supporting your claim. In fact, to the extent that what you said is relevant to the topic, you just supported my position.

5941805

My position is that the slaveholders in 1861 were subject to histrionics. If the slave-holders in the 18th century would be rational, we could and accept my plan, we could avoid the American Civil War. If they would be as irrational and hot-headed as their descendents, we could have avoided the American Civil War by founding 2 countries. Either way, we could have avoided the American Civil War.

5941810

If the slave-holders in the 18th century would be rational, we could and accept my plan, we could avoid the Americal Civil War.

If your argument rests upon a variation of the phrase ‘if only people were rational’, you've already lost.

If they would be as irrational and hot-headed as their descendents, we could have avoided the American Civil War by founding 2 countries.

In which case slavery would have continued to exist in the Southern States long after the 1860's. This directly contradicts your previous insistence that the founders should have immediately abolished slavery.

5941410

Do yourself a favour and stop trying to act smart. You're not good at it.

If I was actually wrong, you'd be able to tell me why.

Also,
>Whines and bitches about tone
>Resorts to "You're wrong but I can't say how!"

5941824
Is that projection I sense? I never claimed I was smart; all I did was make an observation on your statements.

5941826
Some day, you'll notice that "Ur projecting uwu" is a slightly wordier variant of "No u".

When that day comes, get back to me.

5941828

If I was actually wrong, you'd be able to tell me why.

I could tell you why, but I see no reason to. You would neither understand me, nor would you think better of me.

Also,
>Whines and bitches about tone
>Resorts to "You're wrong but I can't say how!"

Do you think those are contradictory, or are you just listing things that happened? I honestly can't tell.

Some day, you'll notice that "Ur projecting uwu" is a slightly wordier variant of "No u".

And your point is? You seem to be working on the assumption that I would agree that the sentiment behind the second phrase is inherently wrong.

5941866
Your assumption is that I'm wrong. Your inability to ask yourself why you think this is tragic.

5941898

Your assumption is that I'm wrong.

Incorrect. You have presented your views, so I can conclude that you're wrong. Since I have not presented my views, you are the one assuming that I'm wrong.

Also:

Congrats on admitting my chess analogy is too hard for you to understand or think about.

Wherein you reject the possibility that your chess analogy is actually incoherent, simply assuming that your opponent is wrong and demonstrating an inability to self-reflect. You're an absolute fountain of irony.

5941818

> " > 'If they would be as irrational and hot-headed as their descendents, we could have avoided the American Civil War by founding 2 countries.'"

> "In which case slavery would have continued to exist in the Southern States long after the 1860's. This directly contradicts your previous insistence that the founders should have immediately abolished slavery."

I would have liked slavery slowly phased out in the late 18th century, but barring that avoiding the American Civil War is preferable to the bloodshed. Slavery pretty much died out in the western hemisphere by the end of the 19th century; so now, the slave-nation would probably abandon slavery without bloodshed by the end of the 19th century.

5942115

so now, the slave-nation would probably abandon slavery without bloodshed by the end of the 19th century.

The US already lagged behind the rest of the western countries on slavery. A Southern Union absent any Northern abolitionist influence has, as I pointed out, basically no impetus to abolish slavery; as it is, the Southern states only aquiesced to the idea when they had run out of fighting men, and they implemented slave-like institutions and harbored slavery-influenced attitudes all the way to the present day. A Southern Union could have kept slavery alive well into the 20th century; but as usual, your hypothetical is colored by what you want to happen rather than on what would have likely happened.

5941911 Alright, let's play a game. You're going to get off your high horse, and make a big boy argument. Rather than saying "Ur wrong so there", you're going to tell me why you believe that I'm wrong, so the rational, adult argument can continue.

Think of this as a game of volleyball. The ball is in your caught. You've shoved your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes, and started to yell "IT'S NOT IN MY COURT, IT'S IN YOUR COURT! THAT MEANS I WIN!".

Please, tell me you understand the rules of volleyball well enough to see what's wrong with your current behaviour and attitude.

As it stands, you're childishly pointing at me and yelling "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!". Tell me, how am I supposed to respond to that? Do I take my boot off and shove it in your mouth to shut you up, do I say "No, you're wrong", do I say "Prove it!", or do I turn to look at Walabo like I'm a character on The Office looking at the camera? Because right now, I've said "Prove it" multiple times, and you've failed to prove it. We're on the internet right now, so your mouth will remain boot-free. (Perhaps that's why you're acting so childishly right now?). I suppose that means I only really have three options:

1. Sink to your level and say "No, you're wrong!"
2. Say "Hey, Walabo. Are you going to ban/warn this guy before or after I post screenshots of this mess?
3. Say "Prove it" to you again, and explain why you should prove it, while calling attention to your behaviour and explaining in simple terms why it needs to stop.

You, of course, have two responses.

1. Continue yelling "No, ur wong! So dewe! I dun't have to expwain anyfing! You'd only say I'm wong and argoo my point, and I can't mentally or emotionally handle that!". Maybe you'll throw up some smokescreens, hyperfocus on the parts of my argument you can argue semantics over ("I don't like your word choice or tone! So there! And I don't like your analogies because they sidetrack and confuse me! So there!"), and generally make yourself look worse. Perhaps you'll whine and cry, and claim I'm being unfair by judging you on your actions and behaviour, rather than what identity and labels you gave yourself.
2. Pick that ball up, man up, and start acting your age.

5942517

Alright, let's play a game.

Only if it sounds fun.

You're going to get off your high horse, and make a big boy argument.

Okay, here's a ‘big boy’ argument:
You joined this group three days ago to necro a thread and post a vitriolic comment directed at the founder of the group. Your comment contained sentiments of hatred for the very sort of person who would frequent this type of group and an expectation (even relish, perhaps?) that you would be tarred and banned.
You didn't come here for a reasonable discussion. You didn't come here to be informed, nor to inform others. You came here because you wanted to argue.
We can argue about anything; there's no reason to return to a specific topic when we can argue about returning to the topic instead. Give me a reason to believe you actually want a discussion; that you'll actually listen and thoughtfully respond rather than simply spit further vitriol; that you'll argue honestly and rationally with intent to communicate ideas back and forth. Then, and only then, will I address the points you want me to.

Think of this as a game of volleyball. The ball is in your caught. You've shoved your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes, and started to yell "IT'S NOT IN MY COURT, IT'S IN YOUR COURT! THAT MEANS I WIN!".

Actually, the ball is in the court opposite of yours. I'm walking past, and see you playing a game with nobody. You jeer at me for failing to take up the ball and be your opponent, claiming that I have an obligation to do so and that by failing to play, I have lost. I find this childish behavior entertaining, so I sit down on a bench beside the court to see how far you're willing to go to get someone to play ball with you.
Give me a reason to play; convince me that you'll play fair and not try to hit me in the head.

5942732
You're crying about my argument's tone, but not arguing against what my argument said. You're telling yourself that despite getting into my volleyball court, picking the ball up, giving it a smug lazy pathetic limp-wristed toss, and getting it spiked down into your court, you weren't taking me seriously and you're still the better volleyball player and the ball's totally in my court because you said so, so it doesn't count as a win for me.

I came into a thread with a bad argument I've seen used hundreds of times before, was fully expecting OP to go full liberal... but instead, you did.

I'm glad I hurt your feelings by calling attention to your incompetence. Now you're claiming you're afraid of me? You're afraid I'm going to hit you? Cute. Do you know how you can get back your pride and dignity? By picking that ball up and serving it properly. Or by admitting that you lost, and getting off this beach. Or by running off this beach in tears. Standing here and telling me your delusions isn't impressing anyone. Take the L. Play ball, or get out of the way for someone who will.

5943750

Do you know how you can get back your pride and dignity?

I haven't lost any pride or dignity. I never served. I never joined the game. I asked if you would play by the rules, and you made fun of me for thinking volleyball had rules. Go find somewhere else to feed your ego.

5943755 Keep telling yourself that. You lost, deal with it. I gave you plenty of chances to try and make a counterargument, but you don't want to do that, because you know you can't do it. You know you can't beat me. Crying about how unfair it is of me to expect you to back up for feelings with facts... Typical.

5646253 And you. Look at this image.

What has to go through your head before you can say "Those tiny blue bits should decide the entire fate of the nation and the red majority shouldn't" with a straight face? If we made a 3d map of this image, with the third dimension measuring population, we'd see a bunch of blue towers on a mostly-red map. How fitting that the ivory tower... No, they don't like that term, it's too ethnocentric. How appropriate that the liberal towerjerk believes its voice should drown out all others.

5943878
How old are you? I'm guessing 17. A few years from now, you'll look back and realize just how petulant you sound here. If you're already in your 20's though, I doubt you'll ever reach full maturity.

5943878

¡Your argument is that dirt should vote! Here is a better map:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countycartpurple1024.png

If you insist that dirt should vote, then Alaska should get more Electoral Votes than California and Texas combined: