Author Topic: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight  (Read 5784 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #60 on: August 09, 2019, 01:28:51 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2019, 02:34:22 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2376
  • Tommy Points: 381
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.
Yeah no, Bruce lost because more voters chose someone else.
Ranked choice allowed Mainers to say “I like what this person stands for, and if not them, I prefer this person next.” It frees voters to vote their conscience, which, in the end, is why Poloquin lost. He  is at odds with the majority’s conscience.
Given your opposition to ranked choice I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on gerrymandering

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2019, 02:40:59 PM »

Offline Evantime34

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11863
  • Tommy Points: 761
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.
Thanks for explaining that, I didn't really know that about ranked choice voting.

It would be cool though if the person who got the most votes won every election.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #63 on: August 09, 2019, 02:43:05 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2376
  • Tommy Points: 381
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.
Thanks for explaining that, I didn't really know that about ranked choice voting.

It would be cool though if the person who got the most votes won every election.
Burn

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #64 on: August 09, 2019, 03:43:34 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17732
  • Tommy Points: 1170
Quote
It would be cool though if the person who got the most votes won every election.

Given that most people have little knowledge of social sciences and history, it would not give me hope.   Time after time people vote against their interests,

As far as corporations go, they have so many members of Congress in their fold that I fear change will never happen.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #65 on: August 09, 2019, 04:18:23 PM »

Offline CptZoogs

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 378
  • Tommy Points: 47
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

This is a non-answer.  "Reality" isn't what you personally deem it to be.  Surely you could come up with something that backs up whatever rhetoric you have been listening to on the matter.  Also, what do you mean when you say Democrats passed it?  It was a referendum question that Maine voters voted on and it passed 52% 48%.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #66 on: August 09, 2019, 04:55:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

This is a non-answer.  "Reality" isn't what you personally deem it to be.  Surely you could come up with something that backs up whatever rhetoric you have been listening to on the matter.  Also, what do you mean when you say Democrats passed it?  It was a referendum question that Maine voters voted on and it passed 52% 48%.

The referendum was pushed by progressives and supported by Democrats.

I know several members of the Maine Legislature, the current governor, and the current AG (who I’ve been friends with for a decade, and who was co-counsel on my first case in Maine).  Almost all happen to be Democrats. Believe it or not, politicians can be candid in private when they’re less forthcoming publicly.  Accepting political spin at face value has always come across to me as a special kind of naive.  Thus, why I don’t listen to “rhetoric “; I can actually think for myself.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2019, 05:24:21 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, do you actually think 2/3 of state legislators would ever agree to a dissolution of the EC?  You're asking a whole lot of people to essentially give up their way of life in favor of urban desires.  I can't see that ever happening.

You'd probably have better luck just moving in a mass exodus to a rural or southern state.

I concur that a constitutional amendment to fix this is unlikely.

However, states are slowly working towards a partial solution in the form of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.   Once adopted by a few more states, bringing the total number of electoral votes under it's influence above the 270 vote threshold (it is currently at 196), then it will go into effect, which will effectively remove most of the influence of the Electoral College.

It still won't solve the problem of disenfranchisement of citizens outside the 50 states, but at least it will force the popular vote to mean something.

So, if I'm understanding this accord correctly, the participating states are essentially agreeing to potentially award their electoral votes to a candidate that actually lost their state election.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure that is likely to come to fruition either.  I don't see enough states agreeing to that, at least not enough to garner the 270 votes required.  Of the states currently with legislation pending, only MN & WI seem guaranteed.  OH, PA and NH are probably a 50/50 proposition.  The rest are all red states that are exceedingly unlikely to pass such legislation.  There's also the fact NV already had their governor, a Democrat no less, veto such legislation, and CO actually looks to be moving towards potentially changing course and backing out.  Even if all of MN, WI, OH, PA and NH agree that is only 258 votes.  The only other two states I could see agreeing would be MI or ME, and ME is only 4 votes, it would have to be MI.  Essentially you are going to need all of PA, OH, MI, WI, and MN to sign on and hope CO doesn't back out.  It's definitely possible, but it could just as easily never happen, and probably not in time for the 2020 election.

And it still would have to pass the SCOTUS, as you can rest assured there will be lawsuits.  It seems Congress has to approve of such compacts between states, and such compacts must not provide power to states that usurps federal powers.  I think it probably passes muster, but it will definitely be a long, drawn-out battle if it ever comes to that.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #68 on: August 09, 2019, 08:56:25 PM »

Offline CptZoogs

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 378
  • Tommy Points: 47
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

This is a non-answer.  "Reality" isn't what you personally deem it to be.  Surely you could come up with something that backs up whatever rhetoric you have been listening to on the matter.  Also, what do you mean when you say Democrats passed it?  It was a referendum question that Maine voters voted on and it passed 52% 48%.

The referendum was pushed by progressives and supported by Democrats.

I know several members of the Maine Legislature, the current governor, and the current AG (who I’ve been friends with for a decade, and who was co-counsel on my first case in Maine).  Almost all happen to be Democrats. Believe it or not, politicians can be candid in private when they’re less forthcoming publicly.  Accepting political spin at face value has always come across to me as a special kind of naive.  Thus, why I don’t listen to “rhetoric “; I can actually think for myself.

I have no doubts you are more connected in Maine politics than I am.  And I am sure there are people in high places that agree with your take, but what is the basis for the thought process?  What I am looking for is some qualification for your argument that RCV ensures no third party member can win and the predominant party stays in power.  I do not see where this comes from mathematically.  I don't pay attention to spin.  I understand that it prevents the most widely unfavorable candidate from winning.  Perhaps this is why support for it grew during LePage's tenure (it was actually first brought to state legislature in 2001, while an independent was a governor.  Then again with a democrat in office.  All before LePage showed up.)  But I do not see how in discourages third party voting.  If a voter knows what they are doing, they should become more invested in researching alternative candidates, since you might not get your first choice.

Also, no matter how the question ended up going to vote (even if some guy got high and stuck it on their as a lark), the fact remains that Maine voters got to decide.  So I don't buy that it was some democrat-implemented tactic.  They are looking at implementing it other states at the local level, red and blue alike.

At the end of the day, RCV is just an alternative and comes with its own set of pros and cons.  Every voting system does.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #69 on: August 09, 2019, 09:30:36 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Also, no matter how the question ended up going to vote (even if some guy got high and stuck it on their as a lark), the fact remains that Maine voters got to decide.  So I don't buy that it was some democrat-implemented tactic.  They are looking at implementing it other states at the local level, red and blue alike.

Can you show me any significant Republican / conservative support for it in Maine?

Maine is a blue state, so it’s not surprising that majority-Democrat voters backed an initiative to bolster Democrat control.

Ranked choice serves the purpose of ensuring that candidates from the dominant party don’t lose.  If Alabama had had the foresight to have ranked choice, we’d possibly be talking about Senator Roy Moore right now.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #70 on: August 09, 2019, 10:03:49 PM »

Offline CptZoogs

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 378
  • Tommy Points: 47
Quote
Also, no matter how the question ended up going to vote (even if some guy got high and stuck it on their as a lark), the fact remains that Maine voters got to decide.  So I don't buy that it was some democrat-implemented tactic.  They are looking at implementing it other states at the local level, red and blue alike.

Can you show me any significant Republican / conservative support for it in Maine?

Maine is a blue state, so it’s not surprising that majority-Democrat voters backed an initiative to bolster Democrat control.

Ranked choice serves the purpose of ensuring that candidates from the dominant party don’t lose.  If Alabama had had the foresight to have ranked choice, we’d possibly be talking about Senator Roy Moore right now.

I don't mean to be difficult, but I understand that this is your take.  I have no idea where it is coming from.  It does not make sense to me mathematically.  I have also been searching for arguments that support it and have come up empty to this point.  I am not a political scientist.  I have been exposed to election theory in my studies in mathematics.  I see where RCV benefits third party voting.  I do not see arguments that support what you say it does.  If you know of any, I would be keen on reading them.

Maine seems more purplish to me, maybe skewing more blue in the most recent elections.  They split their electoral votes 3 to 1 in 2016.  No governor candidate has received a majority of the vote in like over 50 years.  Pew has the distribution as 47% dem, 36% Rep and 17% no lean.  That 17% can make the difference either way, so it seems like RCV is a viable option for Maine voters.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2019, 01:43:49 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Tommy Points: 170
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

Democrats didn't steal anything, they implemented a system that better represents the will of the electorate. For those who dont know ranked voting works by eliminating bottom tier candidates from contention if no candidate gains a majority of first place votes. There were four candidates running in the election, the top two were at roughly 46.2% (R) and 45.5% (D) in terms of first place votes. Because neither had a majority the two independents running were eliminated and their votes were given to one of the two remaining candidates in cases were that candidate was listed as the second choice. People who voted for the independent overwhelming put the democratic as their second choice which gave the democrat a 50.5 to 49.5 edge. In other words more people would rather the democrat win than the republican if that was the choice.

Its also worth noting that democrats didn't actually "implement" anything. Maine voters approved the measure by referendum in 2016. The state legislature then tried to delay implementation until 2021 but proponents of the law were able to essentially get a veto referendum on the ballot in 2018 which Mainers again voted for. In other words Maine voted for this thing twice, then it worked exactly how its supposed to work by electing the guy more people would rather see have the job. Its kind of silly to accuse Maine Democrats of trying to prevent another LePage when it was Maine Voters themselves who were so sick of that clown that they votes TWICE to change their entire voting structure.

And where are you getting that ranked choice doesn't help 3rd parties? thats literally exactly what its designed to doo. It  frees people up to vote for those third parties without worrying  that their vote will be "wasted."

And not for nothing but no, we wouldn't be talking Senator Roy Moore right now. Doug Jones had 49.7 percent of the vote, there were not third party candidates running only write ins. The total vote difference between Moore and Jones was abut equal to the number of write ins. So unless quite literally every write in listed Roy Moore as their second option the results would not have been altered. RCV might have helped republicans in that it would have allowed for a substantial effort from a last minute conservative challenger on the ballot. Republicans could have then chosen to support that candidate over Moore without fear of splitting the conservative vote. Maybe that candidate also pulls enough votes away from Jones that he beats Moore on the first ballot, scoops up his votes on the second and takes the whole thing.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2019, 02:16:44 AM by keevsnick »

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2019, 01:48:08 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Tommy Points: 170
Quote
Also, no matter how the question ended up going to vote (even if some guy got high and stuck it on their as a lark), the fact remains that Maine voters got to decide.  So I don't buy that it was some democrat-implemented tactic.  They are looking at implementing it other states at the local level, red and blue alike.

Can you show me any significant Republican / conservative support for it in Maine?

Maine is a blue state, so it’s not surprising that majority-Democrat voters backed an initiative to bolster Democrat control.

Ranked choice serves the purpose of ensuring that candidates from the dominant party don’t lose.  If Alabama had had the foresight to have ranked choice, we’d possibly be talking about Senator Roy Moore right now.

What it actually does is ensure that the candidate with the most overall support wins and prevents  one from sneaking in as the winner when two or more similar candidates split a voting pool that otherwise who vote as a united block.

TLDR: The democrat in Maine won because more people in Maine wanted the democrat to win. Republicans are throwing a hissy fit because they very rarely like the result when people actually get a fair chance to vote.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2019, 02:19:46 AM by keevsnick »

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #73 on: August 10, 2019, 07:54:55 AM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2376
  • Tommy Points: 381
This was discussed waaay back at the beginning of this thread, but a few folks mentioned issues with the two party system.  Duverger's law argues that this may be a product of our plurality voting system.  The good news is that there are actually a lot of other voting systems to explore.  For example, Maine was the first state to use ranked choice voting for house and senate seats.  The idea is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to have an impact.  The bad news is that according to Arrow's theorem, no voting system with 3 or more options can be completely "fair".  By "fair", I mean a set of fairness tenants like "transistivity" or "no dictator".  In short, when it comes to voting, you have to pick your poison.

Ranked choice isn’t about helping third parties. Rather, it ensures that third parties never win an election, as it benefits the predominant party in a state. In Maine, it was all about ensuring that a blue state never elects red politicians.

What theory and/or data are you basing this assertion on?

Reality.  Ranked choice was passed by Democrats in Maine to make sure a Republican like Paul LePage could never win with around 40% of the vote.  Luckily, despite the plans of activists, the law doesn’t apply to gubernatorial elections.

The plan worked, too, as Democrats stole a House seat from Bruce Poloquin, as he had the most votes but lost the election.

Democrats didn't steal anything, they implemented a system that better represents the will of the electorate. For those who dont know ranked voting works by eliminating bottom tier candidates from contention if no candidate gains a majority of first place votes. There were four candidates running in the election, the top two were at roughly 46.2% (R) and 45.5% (D) in terms of first place votes. Because neither had a majority the two independents running were eliminated and their votes were given to one of the two remaining candidates in cases were that candidate was listed as the second choice. People who voted for the independent overwhelming put the democratic as their second choice which gave the democrat a 50.5 to 49.5 edge. In other words more people would rather the democrat win than the republican if that was the choice.

Its also worth noting that democrats didn't actually "implement" anything. Maine voters approved the measure by referendum in 2016. The state legislature then tried to delay implementation until 2021 but proponents of the law were able to essentially get a veto referendum on the ballot in 2018 which Mainers again voted for. In other words Maine voted for this thing twice, then it worked exactly how its supposed to work by electing the guy more people would rather see have the job. Its kind of silly to accuse Maine Democrats of trying to prevent another LePage when it was Maine Voters themselves who were so sick of that clown that they votes TWICE to change their entire voting structure.

And where are you getting that ranked choice doesn't help 3rd parties? thats literally exactly what its designed to doo. It  frees people up to vote for those third parties without worrying  that their vote will be "wasted."

And not for nothing but no, we wouldn't be talking Senator Roy Moore right now. Doug Jones had 49.7 percent of the vote, there were not third party candidates running only write ins. The total vote difference between Moore and Jones was abut equal to the number of write ins. So unless quite literally every write in listed Roy Moore as their second option the results would not have been altered. RCV might have helped republicans in that it would have allowed for a substantial effort from a last minute conservative challenger on the ballot. Republicans could have then chosen to support that candidate over Moore without fear of splitting the conservative vote. Maybe that candidate also pulls enough votes away from Jones that he beats Moore on the first ballot, scoops up his votes on the second and takes the whole thing.

TP
Thanks for taking the time to explain this.
Facts are important.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #74 on: August 10, 2019, 07:59:47 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Odd: Liberals hate the Electoral College because it allows candidates to win despite not having the most votes, but support ranked choice (at least in blue states) because it allows a candidate to win despite not having the most votes.

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required