• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

American? VOTE!

acuity said:
The "first-past-the-post" voting system is actually what favours the two-party outcome. In Australia—for example—voting is compulsory (turnout rates are above 90%) and elections are on Saturdays. They still have a two-horse race between the Liberal/National alliance and the Labor party.
Click to expand...
Is your system not proportional representation, like the Kiwis? I had thought it was.

DR
 
BPSCG said:
Okay, who the @#$% are you, and what did you do with Mephisto?
Click to expand...

:) Believe it or not, I actually voted for a single Republican, but only because I know his opponent personally (he can't even balance his checkbook). I wish I could say I voted for the Republican because he was the better alternative, but he's simply the lesser of two evils.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Is your system not proportional representation, like the Kiwis? I had thought it was.
Click to expand...
It's instant runoff in fact, and single transferable vote for the Senate. Runoff is closer to FPTP than to PR, because you still get districts, and it approximates to "whoever is least unpopular in the district wins".

PS—Not "my" system. I'm a Kiwi but vote in the UK. Two passports are good.
 
Oh, and the last two or three times I've voted, I've used the electronic machines, mostly just for the novelty of it and because no one else would. The ones in my district have a sealed running print out of your vote that you can check before submitting.

I did not use them this time beause there were only two machines, there was a line, and I didn't want to wait that long.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Voting for the lesser of two evils keeps the two party system going.
Click to expand...
True but it is a rational way to vote if your primary incentive is to influence the outcome as best you can. If you want to keep the "greater evil" out then vote for the candidate most likely to make that happen.

Personally I favour allowing a ballot for "Re-open nominations" the way my students' union ran elections. See how long paralysis can be tolerated.
 
I'd vote, but I just put a Hungry Man Dinner in the oven, and Judge Mathis is on for like two hours.

I might also take a nap at some point. Busy, busy, busy!
 
acuity said:
True but it is a rational way to vote if your primary incentive is to influence the outcome as best you can. If you want to keep the "greater evil" out then vote for the candidate most likely to make that happen.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have my vote reflect my true feelings. Isn't that the point of democracy?
 
I just voted. Electronic machine. They checked my ID and had me sign a paper verifying my address and name. Very few Democrats running in my area. Lots of uncontested Republicans or Libertarians. I actually voted for one Libertarian (the lesser of 2 evils theory) and left a few blank. If I don't know enough about someone, I will not vote for them.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'd rather have my vote reflect my true feelings. Isn't that the point of democracy?
Click to expand...
Feelings? The "point of democracy" is to participate in formation of policy that you have to live with as law. The republic uses a proxy, except on referendums, as the mechanism for that.

Everyone has feelings. Not all will match yours. Fusing the various "feelings" into a useful, or even modestly fair, policy takes considerable work, and compromise. With compromise at the heart of representative governmental process, you'll often get a less than 100% fidelity to your "feelings" in a final policy. Other "feelings" should and will be considered, weighed, or accomodated. The Brits have a great phrase for this: muddling through. :)

DR
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'd rather have my vote reflect my true feelings. Isn't that the point of democracy?
Click to expand...
You're welcome to do so, but the point of democracy is for the voter to use their vote to have their say in influencing a binding outcome on all civilians. Certainly there should be no dictum along the lines of "You must vote in accordance with your feelings". As far as I know it's perfectly legal* for me to sell my vote to someone else—as in vote for who they want in return for cash. They'd need to trust me though.

*(I'm not sure it's legal. It's rather difficult to enforce against though)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Feelings? The "point of democracy" is to participate in formation of policy that you have to live with as law. The republic uses a proxy, except on referendums, as the mechanism for that.
Click to expand...

By "feelings" I mean my political opinions.

Everyone has feelings. Not all will match yours. Fusing the various "feelings" into a useful, or even modestly fair, policy takes considerable work, and compromise. With compromise at the heart of representative governmental process, you'll often get a less than 100% fidelity to your "feelings" in a final policy. Other "feelings" should and will be considered, weighed, or accomodated. The Brits have a great phrase for this: muddling through. :)

DR
Click to expand...

Oh I understand that I will probably never find a candidate that will agree with me on every issue point for point. Unfortunately, the current political parties don't share enough of my POV's to represent me effectively.
 
acuity said:
You're welcome to do so, but the point of democracy is for the voter to use their vote to have their say in influencing a binding outcome on all civilians. Certainly there should be no dictum along the lines of "You must vote in accordance with your feelings". As far as I know it's perfectly legal* for me to sell my vote to someone else—as in vote for who they want in return for cash. They'd need to trust me though.

*(I'm not sure it's legal. It's rather difficult to enforce against though)
Click to expand...

I don't think I said or implied that you can't use your vote as you wish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom