[EM] A horrible thing we need to crush: Fusion Voting

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

 From: bql at bolson.org
 >
 >
 > Here's a couple links that talk about this terrible "solution" to the
 > spoiler problem:
 > http://www.nmef.org/solution.htm
 > http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/07/new_party_pushe.html
 >
 > Ok, yeah, no journalistic integrity, I'm pre-biasing you all against thi
 > stuff, oh well.
 
 It doesn't seem that bad. It is clearly better than
 plurality. It allows voters better expressivity, even if it still
 requires tactical voting.
 
 Clearly, it isn't the best, but it is an improvement.
 
 > They seem to think that the 2000 US President ballot might have looked
 > something like this:
 > __ Bush, Republican Party
 > __ Gore, Democratic Party
 > __ Bush, Libertarian Party
 > __ Gore, Green Party
 > __ Bush, Total World Domination Party
 > __ Gore, Working Families Party
 >
 > A) Great way to continue to ensure the irrelevance of 3rd parties.
 
 They would be slightly less irrelevant. Centerists would be even more
 relevant.
 
 > B) Yeah, right, like the Greens/Libertarians would ever go along with
 > this.
 
 It is better than the current system. There is a good arguement
 that it is equivalent to IRV in alot of cases. However, ofc, it
 allows the candidate's parties to choose the transfers. This is 
 IMO a bad thing as ideally voters should be the ones choosing.
 
 Hmm, maybe it could be considered equivalent to asset voting where
 the votes are transfered before the election is held? (and without
 the whole getting all the candidates in one place to transfer
 the votes).
 
 > C) No improvement in choice. Still only 2 choices on the ballot. (Though
 > some see this as an improvement since then there won't be spoiled
 > elections.)
 
 However, expression is increased. You can choose to express your
 support for a 3rd party while still voting for a major party.
 
 The real question is how would 3rd parties be treated under this system,
 would major parties treat them like they do the voters, promise the world
 and then ignore them until the next election is upcomming.
 
 Also, it wouldn't increase the power of 3rd parties that have extreme
 view. For example, if the Greens were to threaten to switch to the
 Republicans, the Democrats would probably ignore them. Even if the
 leadership of the Greens wasn't bluffing, their voters are going to vote
 for
 
 ___ Bush, Green Party
 
 no matter how much the Green's leadership says that they have
 obtained a better deal from the Republicans. OTOH, maybe the 
 Greens could say that they will support the Republicans if the
 Republicans run a more enviromentally candidate.
 
 However, centerist parties could do quite well under this system. A
 party that is willing (and who's supporters are willing) to align
 with either of the major parties will have its power enhanced.
 
 I don't think that it is the best system. Something like STV-PR is
 better as it explicitally gives each party a number of seats linked
 to its vote share.
 
 The real issue is how it would handle changes to the top two 
 parties. For example, if on the previous election it was
 
 Candidate A, Party A: 25% 
 Candidate A, Party B: 30%
 Candidate C, Party C: 45%
 
 Would party B be able to argue that its candidate should be
 the one to represent the A+B ticket? However, if all anyone sees
 is 55% - 45%, then nobody knows the relative intra-ticket support.
 
 One other thing. It is quite possible that parties would use this
 system to trade support between districts. Two parties could
 trade support in one district for another. A party with 5% might
 agree to support a major party in 10 districts in exchange for
 them supporting their candidate in one.
 
 Voter trading would only work if parties could consistantly 
 maintain a reasonable amount of their support no 
 matter who they pick.
 
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20060903/f0580838/attachment-0003.htm>