thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
September 16th, 2011 at 5:17:47 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

It is called "cumulative voting" and yes, it is being used in the USA. It has been used in Amarillo lately, and is a favorite system of far-left minorities to get at least one seat on a board or council. Lots of links when you google it.



There's much better ways of voting a sub set of people from a list into a position as well, without having to allow multiple votes to one candidate (note that everyone in such systems gets the same number of votes)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
September 16th, 2011 at 7:19:32 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

There's much better ways of voting a sub set of people from a list into a position as well, without having to allow multiple votes to one candidate (note that everyone in such systems gets the same number of votes)



Right. Party lists are okay, but then you really need a primary to determine the order of candidates (ie which will be 1st on the list and therefore only needs 1 earned seat to take office, etc). The problem with this cumulative voting is you can have someone win who was the choice of far fewer people than the candidate that loses. In the NY example, 100 people could cast all six votes for someone, and 500 people could cast one of their votes for one candidate, perhaps finding the candidate that 100 people voted for unacceptable, but choosing any number of others.

Put another way: Let's say this was done for an office that Sarah Palin was running for. Over 80% of the public could find her utterly unacceptable and specifically wish to vote against her. Yet if a small minority grants all of their votes to her, she can win. This system will probably serve to elect the most fringe candidates out there, because they have the most die-hard supporters who are likely to "spend" all of their votes on one candidate.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
September 16th, 2011 at 7:38:27 PM permalink
In the UK, for local council elections you get three votes for the three councillors being elected. Obviously all three votes must go to different candidates.

Party's tend to offer a slate of candidates. People tend to vote for the entire slate, as it's local council and no-one really knows the candidates beyond the flyer they may send out. That would strike me as better than 3 votes that can be spent on one candidate. I've never quite understood why the small party's offer 3 candidates, not 1, but that's what they do... for someone like the Green's having one candidate that might grab a few votes from people voting for one of the bigger parties would at least concentrate their vote.

Party Lists are okay, but even a single transferable vote (with droop factor) can work out for X for Y votes, and still have smaller parties have a fair chance of being elected (in proportion to their support). Even with a two party system, you could use the STV to elect the Dem/Reps that most closely represented your leanings with an STV.

I prefer there to be more parties rather than less, as anything which forces debate and collaboration is better than standing two-sided shouting matches. What seems to happen is that there's always a strong, solid Right Party and a more fragmented Centre-Left group (from the centrist Democract/Liberal parties through left-centre labour into the whacky leftist socialist/communist/militant groups).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
September 16th, 2011 at 9:52:27 PM permalink
Multi-voting is not something I necessarily oppose, but we here in the US don't even seem to get one-vote-each right yet. Every election, there are several districts that have many more votes cast than there are registered voters.

I would like to see a much more robust screening of voting before multi-voting was used, but I'm not sure we'll ever have anything like voter ID laws or anything here. And, I'm not even sure if those would be a good thing.

  • Jump to: