[EM] Cartoon about single-mark ballots
Jan Kok
jan.kok.5y at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 00:52:56 PDT 2016
(My emails are not getting through to electorama right now, so thank you,
Richard, for replying to electorama and keeping my text intact.)
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM, VoteFair <ElectionMethods at votefair.org>
wrote:
> On 9/23/2016 3:47 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
> > Vote Pact is for people who would prefer some other candidate over both
> > Clinton and Trump, but feel compelled to vote for the lesser evil to
> > keep the greater evil from winning. Find your opposite, then each of you
> > vote for who you really want.
>
> Apparently I don't understand the website. But admittedly I don't see the
> importance of voting for a third-party candidate in a swing state if the
> voter has a preference between Clinton and Trump.
>
Let's say that Alice prefers Stein>Johnson>Clinton>Trump (meaning she
really would prefer that Stein or Johnson win instead of Clinton or Trump)
and also feels strongly enough that Clinton is better than Trump, that she
feels compelled to vote for Clinto to keep Trump from winning.
And let's say Bob prefers Johnson>Stein>Trump>Clinton and feels compelled
to vote for Trump to keep Clinton from winning. (A minor detail is that it
doesn't matter how he ranks Stein if he doesn't think she has a chance of
winning.)
Alice would really rather vote for and show her support for Stein, instead
of holding her nose and voting for lesser-evil Clinton.
Similarly, Bob would really rather vote for Johnson, instead of voting for
lesser-evil Trump.
If Alice and Bob and millions of other like-minded people vote for Clinton
and Trump, then Clinton and Trump get a huge number of votes, Stein and
Johnson get vote totals that greatly understate their true level of support
among the voters, and Clinton or Trump wins.
BUT, if Alice and Bob (and millions of other pairs of people) find each
other and make a pact to not vote for either Clinton or Trump, then they
are both free to vote for whoever they really like best. And they can do it
knowing that their action didn't cause their greater evil to win. Clinton
or Trump will probably still win, but they both get fewer votes, and the
third party candidates get the votes that they really deserve.
If enough people apply the Vote Pact idea, it's even possible that Johnson
or Stein could win, which would be good or great from Alice and Bob's
standpoint.
Yes, voting for a third-party candidate is tempting for all of us. But it
> is not effective as a way to say "None of the above, start over, try again."
>
No, it's not intended to say "None of the above." Some of us would really
prefer Johnson or Stein or some other over both Clinton and Trump.
In Florida 2000, pre-election polls found that more than 11% of voters
preferred Nader as their first choice. But as we know, he only got 1.6% in
the actual election. Where did the rest of that 11% go? The Nader
supporters bailed and voted for their lesser evils!
Since the election was so close, it's hard to say whether Vote Pact would
have changed the outcome. But the major effect, if Vote Pact had been
applied widely, would have been to give Nader much greater vote totals.
> Getting better ballots and better counting methods adopted is what will
> solve the problem. And making that happen in primary elections, where the
> biggest corrupt results occur, is what's needed first and foremost.
>
I agree, that's important. What I disagree with is that voters in swing
states who prefer third party candidates should just give up and vote for
the lesser evil, when the Vote Pact idea can save them from that. From the
title of your article it sounded like you were advising people to vote for
the lesser evil.
>
> That's the bigger goal of the article, to enlighten people that we are
> using primitive ballots.
>
> Part of the concept is to convey that we are not being asked for a first
> choice, because that would imply we are also being asked for a second
> choice.
>
We're just being asked to "vote for one". The ballots are counted and the
winner chosen.
>
> Instead we are being asked whether we want Clinton or Trump. Only people
> in non-swing states have the luxury of voting for a third-party candidate
> as a "protest" vote.
>
Again, some people might protest-vote, but others of us would seriously
prefer a third party candidate. I think even protest voters (some of them)
might be interested in the Vote Pact idea.
If you really want to indicate "none of the above" and you don't want to
indicate support for anyone, the best way may be to spoil your ballot by
marking a line through all of the candidates' checkboxes.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2016 3:47 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:11 PM, VoteFair <ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/23/2016 1:08 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:56 AM, VoteFair
>> <ElectionMethods at votefair.org <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefa
>> ir.org>
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>>> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2016 12:00 AM, Jan Kok wrote:
>> > Before you publish that article, please check out VotePact.org
>>
>> Even if two people agree to cast ballots that cancel each
>> other out,
>> that's still leaving the decision up to the other voters in
>> that state.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your point. Whether you and another person
>> vote for
>> Clinton and Trump, or make a pact and vote for Stein and/or
>> Johnson
>> instead, the election is still decided by the other voters in
>> the state.
>>
>>
>> Dilution. Why dilute the votes?
>>
>> As an analogy, why put both sweet and sour into the same pot of soup
>> in hopes of balancing them out to be neutral?
>>
>>
>> Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand your point.
>>
>> It seems to me that Clinton and Trump are the sweet and sour, when some
>> of us want neither. Why get into a contest, dumping more sweet and sour
>> into the pot?
>>
>> If you like either Clinton or Trump better than any other candidate
>> regardless of electability, then go ahead and vote for Clinton or
>> Trump. Vote Pact is not for you.
>>
>> Vote Pact is for people who would prefer some other candidate over both
>> Clinton and Trump, but feel compelled to vote for the lesser evil to
>> keep the greater evil from winning. Find your opposite, then each of you
>> vote for who you really want.
>>
>> I am not opposed to your underlying desire to find a way to make
>> things better. I just cannot imagine the logistics of your approach
>> working for more than a handful of people.
>>
>> Another point that Robert Bristow-Johnson points out: vote trading
>> of any kind is illegal. I recall that vote-swapping sites were shut
>> down after they popped up in the Gore-Nader-Bush election. (I don't
>> remember if it was the Supreme Court who made that decision.) I
>> think that if your site got to be too popular, it would be shut down
>> as illegal.
>>
>>
>> It's not my website. I just think it's a great idea, an idea that could
>> have a huge, positive impact if it became widely known and practiced.
>>
>> As for legality, I think laws against it are unenforceable, as a
>> practical matter. How can you prevent people from filling out absentee
>> ballots together?
>>
>> The website helps to spread the idea, but without the website, anyone
>> can still promote and discuss the idea on public forums.
>>
>> (more below)
>>
>> Yes, continue to pioneer, and push against unfairness. But be
>> willing to change course as needed.
>>
>> Richard Fobes
>>
>>
>>
>> The exception would be if enough people used the Vote Pact idea
>> that
>> Stein or Johnson won. But that would be a good outcome from your
>> point
>> of view, right? Otherwise, why did you enter into the vote pact?
>>
>> Participating in your VotePact approach requires finding
>> someone to
>> trust. And the trusting not only applies to trusting who
>> the person
>> will actually vote for, but trusting that the person is not
>> also
>> making a similar arrangement with yet another voter.
>>
>>
>> This is addressed at http://www.votepact.org/about/ under "The
>> Issue of
>> Trust." You can get absentee ballots, fill them out in each
>> other's
>> presence and mail them together. Or you can go to the polls
>> together and
>> check each other's ballots before turning them in.
>>
>> In other words, it's really, really hard to find someone
>> you trust
>> who also has the opposite political preference.
>>
>>
>> In a swing state, it shouldn't be that hard to find your
>> opposite. As
>> for trust, see above.
>>
>> Expressed as a Venn diagram, the overlap between someone I
>> trust and
>> someone who has the opposite political view is empty.
>>
>> Here's part of what I hope to convey in the article:
>>
>> A single-mark ballot is not asking for the voter's first
>> choice. If
>> it was, it would also ask for a second choice.
>>
>> Instead a single-mark ballot is equivalent to being given a
>> marble
>> and being asked to put it into the bucket with their
>> "preferred"
>> candidate's name on the bucket. And only the two heaviest
>> buckets
>> will have their marbles counted. The other buckets might
>> as well be
>> bottomless.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly. All the buckets will be counted. Only the two heaviest
>> buckets will be widely reported, but you can certainly find detailed
>> data about all the buckets if you look.
>>
>> As for the "bottomless" comment, if you vote for Clinton and Trump wins,
>> Clinton's bucket might just as well be bottomless as well, wouldn't you
>> say? And if you liked someone better than Clinton, you missed your
>> opportunity to show your support for that candidate when you voted for
>> Clinton. You wasted your vote on someone who didn't win.
>>
>> I think there are two reasons for voting: One is to influence the
>> outcome of _this_ election in a direction that you want. The other is to
>> show your support for the candidates/parties you like, encourage them to
>> run again, and attract attention to those candidates/parties by giving
>> them large vote counts, thus increasing their chances of success in
>> _future_ elections. Vote Pact can help with both of those things.
>>
>>
>> Richard Fobes
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/2016 12:00 AM, Jan Kok wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:42 PM, VoteFair
>> <ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>>
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org
>> <mailto:ElectionMethods at votefair.org>>>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I will use the image as part of an article I'm
>> writing that
>> explains
>> why voters in swing states should not vote for a
>> third-party candidate.
>>
>>
>> Before you publish that article, please check out
>> VotePact.org
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see
>> http://electorama.com/em for
>> list info
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> list info
>>
>>
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160925/fb3c2fd7/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list