Whereas: The current Election system has yielded bad results, is confusing, and is generally confusing to people who aren't experts. This limits the pool of SoEs and increases stress on the SoEs. This proposal would be simple, fair, and easy to understand for casual users.
Article 2 §5 Shall be amended to:
§5. The Senate shall be elected using the Partial Block Voting method described in Appendix §1.5.
§5.1. Votes may be examined if there is suspected voter fraud, and they are deemed illegitimate by the Attorney General or any Special Prosecutor.
§5.2. If votes are deemed illegitimate, they must be removed from consideration in the election result in accordance with Appendix §1.7.
§5.3. In the event that a tie takes place for the last senate seat, all candidates in the tie will become senators.
Appendix §1.5. Shall be changed to the following
§1.5. Voting shall be decided using partial block voting, either using google forms or an equivalent program. They will vote for three (3) candidates of their choosing. No more and no less. The candidates with the most votes win the senate seats.
I’m all in support of a 3rd party. But with the current plurality voting system (each person gets one vote for a candidate) I don’t know that it’s realistic to gain offices/positions. With the current polarization in the US, a 3rd party would likely still trail significantly - even with a more robust organization behind it. I’m not saying that I approve of that, but that’s just how things shake out in the current system. Is the MPP also pushing for a ranked choice voting system or something similar? In the current state of politics that seems to be the only way to bust out of the dreaded “spoiler effect.”
This theory is based on the fact that nobody left in the game has a clear winner edit but rather everyone has their strengths and flaws being shown (except for poor Heather who’s pretty much irrelevant).
I think that game-wise Ricard would almost sweep the jury and Heather would almost certainly get 0 votes. However, an Erika-Deshawn-Xander F3 is very much a possibility and at least I can’t say who would be the clear frontrunner there.
Erika has become more strong lately but was she that strong earlier on? Xander made the flashy move against Liana’s advantage but lately everyone’s kinda forgotten him as if he wasn’t a threat. Deshawn’s been in a power position and made some moves but he’s also been kind of messy.
I wonder if the jury will also see that each of these players had strengths and weaknesses and we end up with a 3-3-2 final vote or something like that, with no clear frontrunner. That could explain why no one had a clear winner edit but rather both their good and bad moments were shown.
Here is what the proposed system would look like.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Sa9wUtYHswXVgHXzovS_pAHxJSa89NpLRlYOq05WEDc/edit
I'm asking because some jurisdictions have a constitutional/charter requirement for elections to be "plurality", and I want to if approval is legal in those jurisdictions.
On one hand, the Wikipedia articles for Plurality Voting System and Approval Voting Systems explicitly make a distinction between the two. On the other hand, approval elections are won with a plurality of votes, so etymologically it makes sense.
So I see very often that hararis are now a relatively small percentage of the population in the Harari region, and so I wanted to ask about whether or not there was a time period or certain event that caused this to occur and why.
There’s a lot of names but how many am I supposed to vote for? One? All of the ones I like?
IIRC from 2017, you don’t actually rank three sets of commissioners, rather rank three total. I was wondering if there’s a proper way to do it so that your three preferred candidates actually stand the best chance of winning. For example, in 2017, Londel French was my first choice and he was never eliminated, so did that mean my other two choices for commie at large weren’t even tabulated? It just seems like the rank three technique doesn’t really mesh with the three at large category unless I’m misunderstanding the process.
There are plenty of videos and articles online showing the problems with the plurality method (a.k.a. FPTP).
-
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Disadvantages
Really the only reason we use FPTP is that it is easy to understand and commit. But that is not an excuse to what I believe breeds apathy in the political and democratic process at best, and disenfranchises people at worst.
What is a good alternative?
Well, there are many. MANY. Each ones with their own ups and downs.
But we have to keep one thing is mind, we need the system to keep people as honest as possible about their political preferences, the system has to be as efficient as possible in choosing the best result, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, as easy as possible.
The first thing people point to is the Alternative Vote, a.k.a. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Down below I discuss a different method.
My suggestion is one that is really so simple, it is amazing that it isn't used much more widely. It is called Score Then Automatic Runoff: STAR.
STAR voting has only two parts to it:
-
A voter gets a ballot with all the candidates listed on it, and must "rate" them on a scale from 0-5 (if left blank, it means 0). The top two candidates with the highest score move the runoff.
-
Your vote goes to the finalist you prefer. Any ties mean abstentions. The finalist with the most votes wins the election.
Why the STAR method over IRV or STV or MMP?
I choose STAR over IRV because IRV actually has some properties that are still undesirable and come up too often for any democratic process. IRV is simple, but it is flawed, just not as flawed as FPTP. I'd refer you to here for more detailed explanations.
STV or MMP require too much change and are still not as effective as STAR in keeping voters honest and choosing the "best" candidate. All that is needed for STAR is a new ballot. MMP requires parties have a predetermined list of who is to be chosen should a party be awarded extra seats, and the lower house of the legislature needs to be able to have overhang seats. STV requires redrawing entirely new electoral districts with more representatives per district, AND it requires the voter to rank potentially 15 candidates in
... keep reading on reddit ➡
